Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

HOUSING (RATE OF INTEREST)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (MR. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Regulations, dated 24th April, 1950, entitled the Housing (Rate of Interest) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1008), a copy of which was laid before your House on 21st June, 1950, be annulled.

I shall give directions in accordance with your Address.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOOTLE EXTENSION BILL

ETON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

ILFORD CORPORATION DRAINAGE BILL

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [24th July], and agreed to.

BATH EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 17th October.

INTERNATIONAL PEACE (PETITION)

Mr. Dodds: I beg to present a petition organised by the Dartford Branch of the United Nations' Association and signed by 8,000 people in the Dartford district, who, even at this late hour, believe it is possible to have peace if prominent statesmen in various countries would give much more thought to the earnest desires of ordinary people throughout the world to live in peace and friendship with each other. The Prayer to the Petition is as follows:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray your honourable House to take immediate action by all means in your power which will lead to the outlawing of weapons of mass destruction by all nations, and to the setting up of stringent safeguards to ensure that they all comply. Your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Dominions (Consultation)

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations by what criterion His Majesty's Government is guided in determining whether to consult Governments in the Dominions prior to important decisions being arrived at by His Majesty's Government, or merely to inform Governments in the Dominions subsequent to a decision having been taken.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is the invariable practice of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to ensure that other members of the Commonwealth are informed in advance on any matter which falls to be decided by this Government, but which may affect Commonwealth interests. The object is to enable the other Governments to express any views which they may wish to put forward; and I need hardly add to enable His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to take fully into account such views as their Commonwealth partners may express.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the Dominions are fully consulted before important decisions are taken, apart from their being informed of those decisions which are arrived at in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The object of giving information is so that comments may be passed from one Government to another. That is the object of that notification; therefore, there is time for consultation except occasionally in some extreme incident, when one Government may have to act very quickly.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Prime Minister say whether this criterion was accepted by the Government before or after the recognition of Communist China?

Mr. Turton: Can the Prime Minister say whether the criterion is the same for foreign affairs and Defence as for other matters?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, in all these matters we endeavour to have the fullest possible consultation.

Mr. Prescott: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received within the last six months from Dominion Prime Ministers personally, or from Dominion Governments, with regard to the desirability of consultation between His Majesty's Government and Dominion Governments before important decisions are arrived at by the former affecting the Empire and Commonwealth as a whole.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Technical Assistance, South-East Asia

Mr. William Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on the execution of the agreement with Commonwealth countries for technical assistance to South-East Asia.

The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth Consultative Committee which met at Sydney in May recommended that a Commonwealth technical assistance scheme should be inaugurated within the next few months and that a bureau should be set up at Colombo to co-ordinate the work. In pursuance of this recommendation a standing committee of officials is at present meeting in Colombo to prepare a report on how the scheme in general and the bureau should work. This report will be considered at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Consultative Committee. The Standing Committee will also deal with day to day questions connected with the provision of technical assistance until such time as the proposed bureau is formally established.

Mr. Wells: May I ask whether there has been any particular agreement with the Australian Government since May on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I should have to have notice of that question.

South Africa (War Graves)

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he can now say what steps he proposes to take to approach the Government of South Africa with regard to the neglected

state of the cemeteries and graves of Imperial troops who died in the South African war; and in view of the undertaking given by the Government of that country many years ago that these cemeteries and graves would be looked after and maintained.

The Prime Minister: A communication has been sent to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in the Union of South Africa on this matter.

Mr. Aitken: Will the Prime Minister say why the Commonwealth authorities have not dealt with this matter before, in view of the many representations made by the South African War Veterans Association, and other interested parties?

The Prime Minister: Because consideration had to be given to exactly where the responsibility lay in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Softwood

Mr. Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the stocks of softwood in this country on 30th June, 1949, and the 30th June, 1950, respectively.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Stocks of softwood, excluding sleepers and poles, were 206,000 standards at 30th June, 1949. Returns from merchants for June, 1950, have not yet been collated, but I estimate that stocks at the 30th June were about 170,000 standards. Softwood stocks are, of course, always at their lowest at the end of June and as the result of an increasing flow of imports the normal seasonal improvement has now started.

Mr. Wakefield: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what cause he attributes this decline in stocks?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir; I have explained on a number of occasions that this decline compared with a year ago is one of availability of dollars for buying from Canada last winter—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Sweden?"] I have already made it clear that purchases from Sweden do not affect this year's stocks, but that supplies will be available for the coming year.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade how the price, c.i.f., of the Soviet softwood which has arrived in this country compares with the price of £55 10s. per standard, c.i.f., United Kingdom ports, paid recently to Sweden.

Mr. H. Wilson: No softwood out of our recent contract with the Soviet supplies has as yet arrived. The first five cargoes, however, are expected within the next week. Their average basis c.i.f. price will be less than £55 10s. per standard.

Mr. Hurd: Does that apply to Russian timber shipped from the White Sea ports?

Mr. Wilson: The Question related to the timber which has arrived in the United Kingdom. None as yet has arrived. The cargoes expected this week are not all coming from the White Sea ports.

Mr. Oakshott: Is not it a fact that freights of £8 10s. a standard and more have been paid for Russian timber, which will bring the cost up to at least as high as Swedish timber, if not higher?

Mr. Wilson: That is a question relating to timber which has already arrived, and the answer relates to timber which is arriving during the next few days. If the hon. Member requires information about other cargoes I shall be very glad to give him an answer.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman circulate a list of the ports from which this timber will be shipped?

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will see that he receives an answer.

Pottery Industry (Japanese Competition)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the continued concern expressed to him by the National Society of Pottery Workers and the British Pottery Manufacturers at the growing competition of the Japanese pottery industry, its output, conditions of employment, rates of wages, earnings, etc.; and what action he intends taking.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I am giving this matter very close attention. I am aware that the United Kingdom industry are concerned in particular about signs of the revival of the type of unfair practice familiar before the war. It is the

policy of His Majesty's Government to assist United Kingdom firms to make use of the legal protection now available in Japan against misuse or copying of designs and trade marks.

Mr. Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be a good arrangement if an advisory committee of a representative character was set up in those industries likely to be affected, so that they can get information?

Mr. Wilson: I am prepared to consider that, but we are in close touch with the industries concerned, and if they can produce evidence of unfair production, or prices below the cost of production, we shall be very glad to inquire into them.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Minister explain how hon. Members opposite can justify this type of demand for "feather bedding" of the particular industries in which they are interested after having condemned the alleged "feather bedding" of farmers?

Mr. Wilson: There is a big difference between "feather bedding" and unfair practices in the matter of imports from overseas.

Mr. Logan: In avoiding Japanese competition is it not possible also to see that less exorbitant prices are charged in the home market?

Mr. Wilson: Pottery is under price control at the present time.

Foreign Visitors (Motor Cars)

Commander Noble: asked the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances visitors to this country desiring to purchase a motor car for export are required by his Department to produce an import licence issued by the other country.

Mr. H. Wilson: So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, "None, Sir."

Commander Noble: Is the President aware that certain motor companies insist on such a licence and that in some cases the country of destination does not require one? If I sent him details will he look into this matter?

Mr. Wilson: I have seen details of this practice which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to send to me, but it is being carried out by the motor companies and not by the Government.

Waste Paper (Collection)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of changed economic circumstances, he will now restore the obligation upon local authorities to collect paper and provide an incentive to encourage people to collect the maximum amount of paper.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to induce local authorities to revive the collection of waste paper now urgently needed by the mills.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the difficulty of obtaining newsprint, he will organise the salvage of waste paper throughout the country on business lines.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. J. Brooks) on 25th July about the collection of waste paper. The production of newsprint in this country is not limited by shortage of waste paper or any other raw material, but by the capacity of the mills.

Mr. Hurd: Is not it a fact that local authorities have now ceased collecting waste paper because of the additional cost imposed by the rise in petrol, which they cannot meet?

Mr. Wilson: Very many local authorities stopped collection last year, because the prices they got from the waste paper trade were not sufficient to cover the then cost of collection.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that my Question asked that the collection of waste paper should be run on business lines, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that local authorities do not collect all the available paper because they make a loss on it? Is he also aware that good paper can be made of wheat straw, and will he make a firm decision before the harvest in order that hundreds of tons of this wheat straw shall not be burned?

Mr. Wilson: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware that the trouble about the collection of waste paper is that it is being run on business

lines at the present time, and that the price received for it is not sufficient to cover the cost of collection.

Factories, Coatbridge

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the proposed closure of the Tinplate and Woodside Ironworks has caused great anxiety in Coatbridge and, as the unemployment figures are already 6 per cent. of the insured population, if he can now make a statement regarding the future prospects of this development area.

Mr. H. Wilson: As my hon. Friend was informed on 25th July, one new factory in Coatbridge is due to start work shortly, as well as others at Newhouse. Coatbridge is one of the districts in the Scottish Development Area to which my Department is making every effort to steer further industry. I should add that Coatbridge will be among the places which will be covered by further changes in development area policy which I hope to announce in the course of the next few days.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that will give very great satisfaction to the people of Coatbridge? May I ask him, however, if he can be somewhat more definite about the factory which is about to be occupied, because it has been "about to be occupied" for at least 12 months and we are beginning to wonder when it actually will be occupied?

Mr. Wilson: I will certainly look into that.

Tinplate Exports

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of tinplate is being exported to foreign countries for use in canning luxury vegetables which are subsequently imported into this country.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am not sure what the hon. Member means by "luxury" vegetables, but in the past 12 months, 103 tons of tinplate were exported for the purpose of canning tomato puree.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his policy in this matter? Is he aware that some of our British canneries are on the point of being closed because of the shortage of tinplate


while Dutch canneries have received more than six times as much tinplate from this country as last year?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware of the serious tinplate position, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the export of tinplate is strictly controlled and that a large proportion of the quantity exported is used to can food for import into this country.

Mr. Turton: Is that not a very unwise use of the control? Surely the priority should be for home-produced fruit and vegetables to be canned here.

Housing Estate, Ealing (Timber)

Mr. Bell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that work on a housing estate at Ealing is being seriously delayed because the timber control are at present unable to supply the necessary timber to the contractors, Messrs. Y. J. Lovell of Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire; and what action he is taking.

Mr. H. Wilson: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the Medlar Farm Housing Estate, Ealing, and I am informed that no work has been delayed there by lack of timber. My inquiries show that the contractors made their approach to Timber Control in anticipation of difficulties which did not, in fact, arise; in the event, they were able to meet their requirements from timber merchants in the normal way.

Mr. Bell: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the contractors have informed me that their work was held up on this job? Does that delay not show that in spite of the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), on 11th July, housing contracts are being delayed by lack of timber?

Mr. Wilson: The statement that there are no timber difficulties in this contract came to my Department from the deputy borough surveyor of Ealing Corporation.

Nylon Stockings

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of Board of Trade if he can yet make an

announcement in respect to the distribution of nylon stockings following his consideration of this problem.

Mr. H. Wilson: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Dodds: Can my right hon. Friend say when he is likely to make this very important announcement?

Mr. Wilson: I am still awaiting further information on the very difficult and complicated system of distribution which seems to apply in the case of nylon stockings.

Mr. Osborne: Would it not be fairer to the women of this country to make it quite plain that there is not sufficient nylon yarn to produce stockings so that all can have what they want, instead of trying to fool them that they can all have them quickly?

Mr. Wilson: There is no question on this side of the House of fooling them, but it is clear to a very large number of the women of this country that if the available supplies of nylon stockings, running at 24 million pairs a year, were more fairly distributed, far more people would have a chance of being supplied.

Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the stockings which are distributed are clearly marked whether they are sub-standard or first-class? Is he aware that I have letters from the manufacturers telling me that stockings which I have submitted to them are definitely sub-standard, one letter saying:
We are very concerned to learn that these were purchased at 12s. 11d. per pair, as the correct price is 8s. 9d."?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. My investigations into this question will certainly include the marking of these stockings and if cases are reported to me of stockings being sold at above the controlled price we will consider taking proceedings.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of nylon stockings left home factories for export in the first six months of this year; what proportion of this quantity were actually exported; and what has happened to the remainder.

Mr. H. Wilson: Complete returns of June deliveries of nylon stockings are not yet available. The manufacturers' returns


for the seven months from November, 1949, to May, 1950, show that out of total sales of 27 million pairs of fully fashioned and circular knitted nylon stockings, 16 million pairs were supplied for export.

Tariffs (International Conference)

Mr. Julian Amery: asked the President of the Board of Trade what instructions he is giving to the British delegation to the forthcoming international conference at Torquay in respect of negotiations affecting Imperial preferences.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am afraid that I could not undertake to announce beforehand the instructions to be given to the United Kingdom delegation since it would clearly not be possible to carry out sucessful negotiations in such circumstances. The House will, however, be aware that it is Government policy, first, to agree to reductions in our tariff, or in the preferences we enjoy in Commonwealth countries, only where we secure a tariff concession which we consider of at least equal advantage, and, secondly, to agree to no changes in preferences which we give or enjoy, without the fullest consultation with other Commonwealth countries involved.

Mr. Amery: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in any commitment entered into, the present time limit in which these commitments can be repudiated or denounced—I believe it is six months—will not be increased to three years?

Mr. Wilson: There may be some confusion between the length of the period for which the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade continue and the period for which each of these tariff commitments continues. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be making a fairly full statement on this in tomorrow's Debate.

Mr. Braine: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these preferences are the most effective instrument for stimulating trade between ourselves and Commonwealth countries; and is it not an act of the greatest folly to continue to bind our hands as we have done in the past? Will he bear this in mind when issuing instructions to the delegation?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware that it is an instrument, but the events of the last two or three years have shown that long-term contracts and other instruments have been almost as important, and perhaps more important, in increasing the volume of trade with the Commonwealth to its present record level.

Captain Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not tie the hands of the Government in connection with the horticultural part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, because the horticultural industry has no assured market? Will he ensure that relevant parts of the agreement can be denounced if circumstances warrant it?

Mr. Wilson: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the question of the negotiations in regard to horticulture is receiving very special attention at the present time.

Mr. Russell: Is it not the case that under the terms of the Geneva Agreements even long-term contracts would not be allowed if the price paid was not the cheapest that could be obtained?

Mr. Wilson: That is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Plywood

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that permission to import plywood is only given by the Timber Trade Federation to members of its plywood importers' section, that such membership is confined to traders who have a minimum current annual turnover, and that a firm which imported large quantities of plywood before the war has been refused membership; and whether he will remove this restriction.

Mr. H. Wilson: I understand that plywood shippers and agents have agreed with the Timber Trades Federation a list of plywood importers, to which any firm may apply to be admitted. I have no power to influence the decision of the Federation on these applications.

Mr. Keeling: Is not this a restrictive practice of the kind which the Government said they wanted to stop?

Mr. Wilson: We would always be prepared to consider whether this was suitable for reference to the Monopolies


Commission. When the purchase of hardwood reverted to private trade, I made it clear that we did not want any rings set up to take the place of public control. I have met the hardwood section of the Timber Trade Federation and they satisfied me for the time being that what they were doing was essential, but I made it clear that it must not continue permanently.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend watch this because there is great dissatisfaction about it? It does not seem right to me that the Timber Trade Federation should be able arbitrarily to exclude new entrants to the industry.

Mr. Wilson: I have made it clear that they are not able to do this without some interference from ourselves. I had a discussion with the trade about the methods of operating this restriction on entry into the hardwood trade, and I was fully satisfied about the way in which they were doing it.

Mr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend, as far as he is able, see that this method of trade control does not result in the price being kept at the terrifically high figure at which it is at the moment?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. Before reversion to private trade took place I made it clear to the Timber Trade Federation that they would not be allowed to operate a ring which forces up the price, but they had to put into force some temporary arrangement because of the necessity to dispose of Government stocks and because of the condition of the sellers' market abroad.

Export Goods (Packing)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent the export trade of this country being injured due to the practice of a number of shipping companies handling cases of goods for export packed in fibre boarding, automatically endorsing them on the bill of lading as being insufficiently packed, since it is giving overseas buyers an excuse to refuse acceptance of the bills and goods and is resulting in claims against the Export Credit Guarantees Department.

Mr. H. Wilson: This matter has been the subject of negotiation between the

Government Departments concerned and the shipping lines and, as a result, several shipping companies have agreed to accept suitable fibreboard outer packing for a wide range of goods, without automatically endorsing the bills of lading. I am not aware that the practice to which my hon. Friend refers has resulted in claims being made against the Export Credits Guarantee Department, none of whose policies includes cover for losses so incurred. If, however, my hon. Friend will give me details of any specific case where difficulty has arisen, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that with the present buyers' market and the tendency for world prices to fall, some foreign importers are using every excuse not to accept British goods and documents? If I send him details of some cases will he circularise the shipping companies and forwarding agents in order to prevent further difficulties?

Mr. Wilson: I have said that I will certainly look into any details which my hon. Friend sends me.

Hardwood (Price)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade what the average increase in the price of imported oak, beech and other hardwoods has been since January last; and what part of this increase has been due to devaluation.

Mr. Wilson: Though it is hard to determine an average price movement for such a varied commodity as hardwood, particularly since it is now privately imported, I would estimate that an overall rise of some 10–15 per cent. has taken place since January. The part of this increase which is due to devaluation varies with different supplying countries and different types of wood, and cannot reliably be estimated.

Mr. Haire: Having returned the purchase of hardwood to the timber trade, does my right hon. Friend think that there is anything he can do now to curb the increases which are coming into effect?

Mr. Wilson: Not that I am aware of. I considered the maintenance of price control after reversion to private trade. I was satisfied that for a commodity so


widely varying in type and specification, it would not be possible to operate price control with private trade.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether devaluation took place in January last or in October, within the terms of the Question?

Mr. Wilson: I thought the hon. Gentleman would know that it took place in neither of those months, but on 18th September last. I am sure that he is equally well aware that there have been some considerable price increases in soft currency markets, some of which did not make themselves apparent in either September or January.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the timber trade claim that the increases are solely due to devaluation.

Mr. Wilson: Members of the timber trade, like members of any other trade, are glad of any alibi to explain any particular increases in price.

Furniture Sales

Mr. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present drop in retail sales in the furniture trade, he is yet able to announce his plans for an extension of the present hire purchase arrangements.

Mr. H. Wilson: The retail trade returns show that sales of furniture are still increasing. In the first five months of this year they were about 12½ per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1949. As regards hire purchase transactions, I am satisfied that it would not be desirable to modify the present requirements as to a minimum deposit and a maximum period of repayment.

Mr. Haire: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the present hire purchase Order works to the disadvantage of the small man in comparison with the bigger firms with greater financial resources?

Mr. Wilson: I am satisfied that there is no need for any general change in the Order, but I have been recently inquiring into the relative position of small firms and some of the very large firms which appear to be in a more favourable position. It is too early to say what will be the result of that investigation.

Czech Artificial Flowers (Imports)

Captain John Crowder: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of artificial flowers are being imported from Czechoslovakia.

Mr. H. Wilson: The United Kingdom have agreed to issue licences, on application, for the import of £40,000 of artificial flowers and components from Czechoslovakia in the year 1950–51.

Captain Crowder: Is the Minister aware that these imported flowers are being sold at cut prices that may very well result in firms in this country having to close, which will result in unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of raising the import duty from 25 per cent. to a higher figure?

Mr. Wilson: If there is evidence on the subject of unfair practice, I would be willing to look into the question of cutting the importation out altogether. If the price is unduly low compared with our own prices, we would certainly be prepared to consider the possibility of altering the tariff rate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the unnecessary character of these imports would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to tell the Czechs: "No flowers, by request"?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that as long as any trade continues between the two countries it is necessary to have a small import of some of the traditional items which have entered into our trade in the past. The amount of flowers coming into this country is only a small proportion of what it was before the war.

Mr. Harrison: Is not the reply of my right hon. Friend an invitation to the Czechoslovak Government to increase the price of these flowers?

Mr. Wilson: I would not care if the prices were increased so much that no flowers came into the country.

Light Industries, Furness Area

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the representations made to his


Department by the Ulverston Urban District Council about the encouragement of light industry or other similar developments in the Furness area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Wilson: My Department has received no representations from this council recently, but if they are made I shall be pleased to consider them. Since the war, in the Furness area one Government factory has been allocated to industry, five new factories and extensions have been completed, four more are under construction and others have been approved. In addition, a number of firms new to the area have acquired existing premises. These developments, taken together, which should ultimately give employment to about 3,000 workers, are already employing about 1,500.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over the last five years representations, including deputations, have been made to his predecessor and to his Department? In any amelioration of the anxieties of Barrow-in-Furness will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that a great many people who live in Ulverston also work in Barrow-in-Furness?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I myself visited the Ulverston Council some little time ago. I am glad that as a result of the representations, and of the action taken by the Government, a considerable fall has taken place in unemployment in the area during the last three years and that unemployment is now very considerably lower than it was before the war.

German Enemy Property (Distribution)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the reason for the delay in making the first distribution of German enemy property; and when he expects this distribution to take place.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have not yet received the report of the advisory committee which was appointed to consider questions about claims to be admitted in the distribution of German enemy property and I could not at this moment say when distribution will begin.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least say that he adheres to the view expressed some time ago by a Government spokesman in another place, that when the first distribution takes place, it will be at the rate of 2s. 6d. in the pound?

Mr. Wilson: I should like to see the report from the advisory committee before I say anything further about distribution. There is, of course, no change in Government policy about the rate of distribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Recruiting

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the deteriorating international situation, he proposes to make any special efforts to improve recruitment for the Civil Defence services.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House on 24th July.

Mr. Gammans: Is there likely to be a spectacular increase in recruiting as a result of the international situation? Will the right hon. Gentleman watch the situation during the next few weeks?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, I shall watch the course of recruiting and take such steps as are necessary.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to implement some of the constructive suggestions made during the Debate on Civil Defence the other night? How soon does he propose to do anything about it?

Mr. Ede: I am considering all the suggestions that were made to me. Some I have decided to adopt and others I do not think are practicable.

Industrial and Commercial Organisations (Discussions)

Mr. Wade: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that certain representative industrial organisations were approached by him some two years ago to appoint representatives who could be called into consultation on matters relating to civil defence in industry, he will say what steps


are now being taken to implement the invitations then issued and when consultations on the relevant matters may be expected to commence.

Mr. Ede: I hope that discussions between the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff and representatives of industrial and commercial organisations will begin in September.

Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware that many firms are willing and anxious to cooperate with the Government on Civil Defence and are awaiting guidance—for example, on the subject of recruitment and on the question as to whether they ought to be organising separate Civil Defence units within their factories?

Mr. Ede: I made a statement some weeks ago in which I suggested that, while the matter was still in abeyance, employees of such firms would be well advised to join the local Civil Defence organisation, and that if an organisation for their particular place of employment was subsequently started they would be free to join that.

Commander Noble: Does the answer of the Minister mean that no discussions have yet taken place on shelters?

Mr. Ede: There have been some informal discussions.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the international situation, these discussions should be brought forward to an earlier date?

Mr. Ede: No, I do not think that that would be possible.

Full-time Staff, Hampshire

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are engaged full-time in the organisation of Civil Defence in the county of Hampshire.

Mr. Ede: I understand that in the geographical county eight full-time appointments of Civil Defence officer and instructor have been made.

Mr. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities are finding great difficulty in dealing with the large number of circulars which are at present coming to them, and will he look

into this matter and see whether he can assist them further?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that that has very much to do with this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to alter the law which enables a person absent from home because of detention in prison to vote by post but does not allow a person absent from home on holiday to do so.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what he said on Tuesday night, when he held out hope that this matter would be put right? Would he bear in mind the absurdity in the present law whereby if one goes to prison in one's own borough one has no vote, while if one goes to prison outside one's borough one has a vote?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, but I gave a detailed reply on this point. I am not quite certain that anyone sent to prison, except on remand, ought to be allowed to vote.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendation has been made by the electoral committee at his Department regarding the question of perforating instead of embossing the voting paper with the official mark; and whether he is giving effect to this recommendation.

Mr. Ede: I have had this matter reviewed, but I am not satisfied that any advantages that perforating instruments may have over embossing instruments are sufficient to justify the expense of substituting the former for the latter.

Mr. Marlowe: Can the right hon. Gentleman form any estimate of the expense? If so, how much would it be? Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect how many votes were spoiled at the last election through the embossed stamp not appearing on the voting paper?

Mr. Ede: An embossing machine costs 5s. I am informed that a perforating machine would cost 30s. 6d., and that to make a complete substitution would cost something like £75,000.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the proposal that a reminder be sent to householders and others who do not complete electoral registration form A, warning them that a fine may be imposed for failure to complete the form; and what conclusion he has reached.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I have had a form of reminder printed on the lines suggested in the Question, and instructions on using it will be included in a circular to electoral registration officers.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department's electoral committee has now arrived at any conclusion with regard to the proposal to re-open the electoral register for a limited period to allow late application for registration by persons qualified for inclusion on the present register but inadvertently omitted.

Mr. Ede: I have considered this matter again since the hon. and learned Member asked me Questions about it last March, but I have not felt able to alter my previous decision.

Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the matter in view of the fact that the October Register will not be prepared this year owing to the mishandling of our financial situation by the Government? Does he not think that he ought to take this step in order to allow people to get on the Register?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It would require legislation, and I do not think that it is sufficiently important for that.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations were made by the electoral conference at the Home Office regarding the need that the two envelopes used in postal voting should be more clearly distinguished; and whether he is giving effect to this recommendation.

Mr. Ede: I have arranged for the two envelopes to be distinguished by having the letters "A" and "B" printed on them boldly, and the revised instructions to the voter refer to them respectively as "the envelope marked 'A'" and "the envelope marked 'B'."

Mr. Erroll: While thanking the Minister for taking action in this matter, may I ask whether he could not substitute two alternative letters, since "A" and "B" are very much overworked in all official communications?

Mr. Ede: That might add to the confusion of the voter. He might look for the letters earlier in the alphabet.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusion he has reached with regard to the proposal that the electoral regulations should provide for each candidate's agent to be supplied with a copy of the list of absent voters.

Mr. Ede: I have not felt able to make this obligatory, because I am advised that some electoral registration officers would find it impossible to produce enough copies for the purpose in the short time available for preparing the list for an election. I propose, however, to ask registration officers to have the lists duplicated and supply copies to candidates wherever practicable.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this does not really meet the position? Would he reconsider the matter with a view to including the provision in the regulations, if possible, because some returning officers are not complying?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir; I think that the facilities available to returning officers differ so much over the country that it would be impracticable to make this a requirement by regulation, but I am asking them, wherever practicable, to take steps to ensure that lists are available.

Mr. John Hay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the proposal made to him that electoral registration officers should be required to send electors' lists to citizen's advice bureaux and libraries for exhibition; and what conclusion he has reached.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I propose to ask those electoral registration officers who do not already follow this practice to consider doing so.

Mr. Hay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is


the estimated cost per annum of substituting a provisional register for the electors' lists B and C; and what decision has been reached on this proposal.

Mr. Ede: It is estimated that this would cost between £150,000 and £200,000 a year for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government have decided that, because of the cost involved, the proposed change can not be made.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for special constables of the Metropolitan Police to be called up on polling day, so that so far as possible a regular or special constable may be on duty at every polling station throughout the poll.

Mr. Ede: The arrangements for attendance of police at polling stations must have regard to the manpower available, which may not permit a constable to be posted throughout the poll at every polling station. The Commissioner of Police has no power to call up special constables for this purpose, but at the last General Election volunteers were called for and 50 per cent. of the total strength of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary did duty.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Home Secretary consider sending out a circular to all police forces suggesting—I know he has no power—a similar course, which would certainly reduce the risk of personation, of which, judging by the number of cases that were caught, there was quite a lot at the last General Election?

Mr. Ede: Yes, this is a matter to which the attention of chief constables generally will be called.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the proposal made to him that the electors' lists and register for every town should have an index of streets; and what instructions he has issued.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. An index of streets is not always needed, but I propose to encourage the provision of an index where this would be advantageous.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for fuller

publicity to be given by the British Broadcasting Corporation to the principles and requirements of electoral registration.

Mr. Ede: This is a matter for the British Broadcasting Corporation, but my Department have had discusions with them and they appreciate its importance.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a good deal more can be done in this way than was done at the last election?

Mr. Ede: I think we did pretty well on the last occasion, but we are hoping to improve on it on the next.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE, BRADFORD

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that three women lost their lives in a fire which occurred in the back room of a stationer's shop in Bradford recently, and that, at the inquest, it was stated that the windows were barred, making escape impossible; and whether he will take steps to enable him to deal with the storage of highly inflammable goods and goods with a low flash point on premises over which at present no supervision can be exercised by the police or fire prevention officers or civil authorities, to prevent a repetition of such disasters.

Mr. Ede: Reports on this tragic fire are before me, including a report on the inquest, and I should like first to express my sympathy with the relatives of the three women employees who were asphyxiated. Some recommendations on means of escape from fires in shops and warehouses, both generally and where explosive or highly inflammable material is stored or used, were made in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Health, Welfare and Safety in Non-Industrial Premises and the Government have these recommendations under consideration. Further, the Explosives Act, 1875, requires registration with the local authority, compliance with rules and inspection of premises, where explosives, including fireworks, are kept and stored. The Bradford premises were of this kind and were accordingly registered. The question of whether there has been any infringement of statutory safeguards is being considered. I can assure my hon.


Friend that measures to reduce the dangers revealed by this fire are being considered by me and, I understand, also by the Bradford fire authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBVERSIVE ELEMENTS

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the present grave circumstances, he will introduce legislation to give him power to restrain immediately the activities of all subversive elements.

Mr. Ede: I am carefully watching the activities mentioned in the Question and am considering the adequacy of the existing law. Should it appear that this is in any way inadequate, Parliament will be asked to strengthen it.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Has the Home Secretary seen the headlines in today's "Daily Worker"—"Not a man, not a gun, for America's war. Save Britain's sons"? Does he think that this type of subversive propaganda is helpful at the present time? Does he think that this is the sort of stuff which will sustain the parents of young men who have to fight and die in Korea? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Surely the right hon. Gentleman can see that the Government will have to tackle this question sooner or later—

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a speech.

Mr. Lindsay: —and the sooner the better, before more trouble arises.

Mr. Ede: I regret that the hon. and gallant Member should have thought it worth while to give to some headlines that would otherwise have died in obscurity, an unnecessary advertisement.

Brigadier Rayner: As the course of events may be such that subversive elements may suddenly become the best organised and the most vicious Fifth Column with which this country has ever had to contend, will the right hon. Gentleman make very special plans for dealing with the situation on that occasion?

Mr. Ede: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the resources of the existing law are very considerable but,

should they need reinforcement, I shall certainly ask the House to strengthen them.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE FORCE (STRENGTH)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those authorities, in the case of which the Police Force is still below strength, have declined to accept the minimum standard recommended by him; and whether he will urge them to reconsider their decision, in view of the urgency of obtaining more recruits for the police.

Mr. Ede: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the minimum height standard for police recruits. I recently asked appointing authorities, in areas where the strength of the force was considerably below establishment, to consider reducing the local standard to the minimum of 5ft. 8 in. prescribed for male recruits in the Police Regulations. I have no information as to the number of authorities that have decided to take no action on this suggestion, but I will consider asking for a return later in the year, in the light of the recruiting position.

Mrs. Braddock: If watch committees refuse to consider reducing the height standard, have they to give any reason to the Home Office for refusal to carry out any request made by the Home Office?

Mr. Ede: I propose to ask for a return to these cases, and where no improvement in recruiting has taken place and the minimum height has not been reduced, I shall have to consider using certain powers that I possess to acquaint the local police authority of my displeasure.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR GUNS AND PISTOLS (SALE)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the number of accidents occuring from the use of air guns or pistols, he will make regulations to prohibit the sale of these articles without the production of a licence.

Mr. Ede: Air guns or air pistols may not be sold to persons under the age of 17 years, but unless they are of a type


declared to be specially dangerous it is not necessary to have a firearm certificate in order to acquire them. I have no power to make regulations to alter the law on this matter.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been a number of serious accidents as a result of children using these air pistols, that they can be bought freely in the shops, and that the only statement made on the boxes containing them is that they cannot be used without a licence? Would it not be wiser to have to produce a licence before one could be purchased?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend can give me any information indicating that one of these weapons has been sold illegally, I will see that appropriate action is considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN PRISONERS (MATERNITY CASES)

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are provided to enable sentenced women to give birth to their children outside the precincts of prison; and if in all such cases he will take steps to ensure that the confinement takes place out of the prison and so avoid the stigmatising of the child.

Mr. Ede: Any woman prisoner who wishes to have her confinement outside prison is, wherever suitable arrangements can be made for her reception, removed to a hospital or maternity home. It is not possible to take steps to see that no children are born in prison because there are cases where expectant mothers do not wish to be transferred to a hospital or maternity home outside, and it may not always be possible in the present overcrowded state of the hospitals to find suitable accommodation in every case. There may also be cases in which the condition of the woman's health precludes removal from prison.

Mr. Lever: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that these facilities are open to every such woman just before her confinement in prison?

Mr. Ede: We do the best we can to make these facilities known, but there are certain cases, such as those which I

have detailed in my answer, where it is not possible to bring about the result we would desire.

Sir H. Williams: Does the birth certificate state the place of birth, or only the parish of birth?

Mr. Ede: It states the place of birth, but an arrangement has been made whereby it is not recorded as a prison but as a certain number in the street in which the prison is situated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. DE VALERA (VISIT TO LINCOLN)

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. de Valera has been given official permission to revisit Lincoln Prison.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member is misinformed. Mr. de Valera has not applied for permission to visit Lincoln Prison.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the projected visit of Mr. de Valera has been widely advertised in the Press, and will he, therefore, give an emphatic contradiction by stating that this report is incorrect?

Mr. Ede: Mr. de Valera, I understand, is going to Lincoln to address a political meeting. He has made no application to go to Lincoln Gaol, but most schools like to welcome old boys.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister assure us that this distinguished, courageous Irishman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—whose courage is respected in the U.S.A., if not on the benches opposite, will not be charged for admission, and that he will get the freedom of Lincoln Gaol?

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING HOURS, WALES

Mr. Steward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the fact that the present licensing laws enable justices in Wales to lay down that on Sundays intoxicating liquor can only be served to hotel residents; that this causes annoyance and acts as a deterrent to the tourist trade in


that country, as foreign tourists are accustomed to taking drinks with their meals; and if he will so amend the licensing laws as to remove this power.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member is misinformed as to the law. The proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Licensing Act, 1921, provides that in Wales and Monmouthshire there shall be no permitted hours for licensed premises on Sundays. I can hold out no prospect of amending legislation on this controversial subject, on which strong public opinion exists in Wales.

Mr. Steward: Will the Home Secretary reconsider this matter if I produce evidence in support of what I have said in my Question?

Mr. Ede: I am always willing to listen to evidence, but I shall have to be very careful to see that it is evidence.

Mr. Watkins: Will my right hon. Friend pay greater regard to the wishes of Welsh people than to one swallow who may occasionally flit in?

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a costly campaign by the liquor trade in order to get this law changed, and will he stand firm by the wishes of the people of Wales?

Mr. Llewellyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to innkeepers just across the Welsh Border?

Mr. Ede: I am glad to know that my popularity with the licensing trade will increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S BROADCAST

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the success of President Truman's broadcast speech in acquainting the world of the issues at stake in Korea and of the motive and scope of the American contribution to the United Nations, he will consider making a world broadcast and at the same time explain the efforts to fight Communism made by this country in Malaya during the last two years.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I propose to broadcast next Sunday evening on the Home and Light Programmes and on the General Overseas Service.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that his broadcast will be addressed not only to the people of this country, but to the world at large, and that he will not minimise the sacrifices that the people of this country are likely to have to make during the next few months?

The Prime Minister: I think I explained that the intention was that the broadcast should also go out on the General Overseas Servie; and, therefore, there will, no doubt, be listeners in the Commonwealth. The hon. Member can be assured, in view of my statement yesterday, that I shall not minimise the difficulties of the present situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SABOTAGE (PENALTIES)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of recent occurrences, he will introduce the death penalty for sabotage where the interests of the nation are involved; and if he will state the present maximum penalty.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Acts of sabotage may be offences under a number of different statutes and the penalty depends on the nature of the offence. Offences of a serious nature are punishable by long terms of imprisonment and the penalty for offences under the Dockyards etc. Protection Act, 1772, is death.

Mr. David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these offences are offences of felony and that if people are killed while these offences are being committed, the people committing felony are guilty of constructive murder? Will he make it known that such people would therefore render themselves liable to the death penalty?

The Prime Minister: No doubt the statement of the hon. Member will be noted.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that the recent explosion in Portsmouth avoided loss of life only by the greatest good luck, will the Prime Minister see that prosecution takes place under the appropriate Act where possible, to ensure that the maximum penalty ensues?

The Prime Minister: The penalty depends on the decision of the judge, but I can assure the hon. Member that if the perpetrators of this act were apprehended, they would be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENT (RE-ASSEMBLY)

Earl Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that, on the receipt of a request from not less than 250 hon. Members for the re-assembly of Parliament during the Recess, His Majesty's Government will represent to Mr. Speaker that the public interest requires such a re-assembly.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would remind the House of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in reply to the Business Question last Thursday, that if it were necessary for the House to meet specially or earlier than 17th October, the Government would make representations to Mr. Speaker under the Standing Orders. I can assure the House that, should the course of events make it desirable in the public interest to do so, we shall not hesitate to follow this course.

Earl Winterton: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion which is to be put later about the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (SPEECH)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Secretary of State for War this weekend on distribution of the financial burden represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Did the right hon. Gentleman observe that in this speech the Secretary of State for War used the expression "people" to describe a section of the people only, and is it with the approval of the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for War uses the language of Communism?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the use of the word "people" is restricted to members of the Communist

Party. In any event, I am not dealing with the question of words, but with a question of policy. As I understand it, the general expression of policy was that in the event of war the burden should be borne equitably.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Prime Minister realise that the Secretary of State for War is a menace, and that the sooner he goes out the better?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give some heed to an appeal from this side of the House to consider the extreme anxiety that exists among the people of our country at the fact that they and hon. Members on this side believe that this country is being led into another world war?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question. I cannot understand what the hon. Member is talking about.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (RUBBER STORE FIRE)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make about the destruction by arson of several thousand tons of rubber, reported this morning, and, in view of the fact that this is the third attempt within 48 hours, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): No, Sir. I have so far seen only Press accounts of this occurrence, but I have asked the Governor for an immediate report.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that this is quite clearly the beginning of a new phase of the Communist attack directed at stopping the flow of vital war materials from the Far East and centred in the Island of Singapore where they are concentrated for shipment, will the right hon. Gentleman see that most vigorous action is taken and reinforcements of police and troops, if necessary, are provided for this vital purpose?

Mr. Griffiths: I am satisfied that the police force in Singapore are sufficient enough and adequate enough to deal with this problem; indeed, in recent months


they have prevented attempts at arson. I am sure that if any further reinforcements are required these will be supplied.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to make a statement in the House tomorrow if he hears from the Governor of Singapore?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I presume there will be another Private Notice Question, but I shall be glad to make a statement when I have heard from the Governor.

Major Tufton Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rubber is a raw material—[Laughter.] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rubber is a raw material—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rubber is a raw material—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is there not a rule in this House against tedious repetition?

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that rubber is a raw material, urgently required by the Soviet Union and that during the last five years we have sold them very large quantities indeed? Does he not think that now the Communists have shown their gratitude in such a typical fashion, it is high time the Government revised the whole policy in connection with this trade?

Mr. Griffiths: That has nothing to do with the Question I have been asked.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that rubber producers have already started their campaign and that the prices of rubber have risen from 2s. 10d. to 3s. 1½d. a pound?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for the first week after the Summer Recess?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for the first week after the Summer Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 17TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the following Consolidation Measures—

Army Reserve [Lords];
Air Force Reserve [Lords];

Housing (Scotland) [Lords];
Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) [Lords];
Diseases of Animals [Lords].

Committee stage of the Public Utilities Street Works Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY, 18TH OCTOBER—Debate on the work of a Public Corporation, or on the general problems affecting Public Corporations.

THURSDAY, 19TH OCTOBER—Committee and remaining stages of the five Consolidation Measures.

Debate on the Report of the Colonial Development Corporation.

FRIDAY, 20TH OCTOBER—Report and Third Reading of the Public Utilities Street Works Bill [Lords].

I wish to give notice, for the convenience of the House, that at the beginning of the following week Motions for Addresses will be proposed praying that Orders in Council be made—

Continuing in force for one year the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and various Defence Regulations and enactments having effect under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947;

Extending for one year the period of emergency for the purposes of Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949; and

Continuing in force for one year certain temporary provisions of the Shops Act, 1950.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree that this is, of course, a provisional agenda, subject to any changes which may come about in the interval. I am grateful to him for giving notice of the Motions he proposes to bring in. Naturally he will understand that we shall reserve comment until the Motions are moved.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Arising out of Business for the first week, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Business put down for Wednesday many of us are anxious to discuss the Report of the British Transport Commission for 1949 and that Report has not yet been produced? Can he tell us whether it will be in the hands of hon. Members


before we adjourn for the Summer Recess? Is it ready yet, and when can we have it?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep in mind the point made by the hon. Member, but I have to consider wishes in all quarters of the House as a whole. This is not Supply; this is an arrangement whereby one has to try to please the House as a whole. Therefore, I cannot give an undertaking about that point, but we will consider it. With regard to the Report of the Transport Committee, it is expected to be published during September.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry. I really jumped up too soon; I think the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's sentence answered the question I wished to put. Before that he was talking about whether we should or should not have the Report to discuss. That was the question put to him and I wished to ask a question to make sure that we would have the Report in good time to study before that date.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member is quite right, I did conclude by saying that it was expected that the Report of the British Transport Commission would be published during September, in which case it would be in the hands of hon. Members two or three weeks before a Debate could arise, if a Debate does arise.

Mr. Harold Davies: In view of the paucity of information made available to this House during the last Debate on the Far East and also the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—whom we are all pleased to see—is now well again, may we have an opportunity in the first week after the Recess, of discussing for a longer period the economic problems of the Far East, so that this Parliament can give to the world a definite policy as far as Asia is concerned?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I could not give an undertaking about that, although I note what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. David Renton: With regard to the report of the British Transport Commission, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it will be a great convenience to hon. Members to be able to study this very big Report in a matter

of three or four weeks rather than in two or three weeks? Could the Lord President of the Council give an assurance that it will be published in the middle of September instead of, as apparently he intends, by the end of September?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give an undertaking because the responsibility for the preparation of the Report is, I understand, that of the British Transport Commission. I will mention the matter to the Minister of Transport so that he can convey it to the right quarter but obviously I cannot give an undertaking.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order on Business today. In the event of a Secret Session this afternoon, may I venture to repeat a proposal which I made on the occasion of one of the war-time Secret Sessions that a verbatim record of the Debate should be kept, not for publication or even for printing now, but for publication at some future time? It is necessary to raise this point of order now because if the House should decide to go into Secret Session it would then obviously be too late to make the necessary arrangements. I venture to submit that it would be highly desirable. It will be recalled that in war-time there were stringent warnings—

Mr. Speaker: The matter cannot be debated. The hon. Member can ask a question and I can give a reply. There could not, of course, be any record kept in the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member; there would be no one here to keep it. In the event of a Secret Session strangers are not here and I have no choice which would enable me to permit the introduction of any special stranger for some special purposes. Therefore, the suggestion made by the hon. Member is quite impossible.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, might I submit to you that although strangers are not here, the contents of many of the speeches which will be made in the event of a Secret Session are in fact already known to persons outside—to civil servants in the Departments assisting in the preparation of Minister's speeches, to the secretaries of Ministers and Members and so on—

Mr. Speaker: We really cannot debate this matter. What the hon. Member is saying has nothing to do with the


matter. In preparing their speeches hon. Members naturally have to consult people and so on, but no one should know exactly what they say in this House in Secret Session, whoever they may have consulted. I shall not permit this matter to be debated any further.

TAXATION OF PROFITS AND INCOME (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in reply to the Debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 16th May, we have been making the preparatory arrangements for the wider inquiry into taxation which my right hon. and learned Friend stated in his Budget Speech of 1949 would follow the present Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Millard Tucker which is inquiring into the computation of trading profits.
Although my right hon. and learned Friend's statement related primarily to the taxation of industry and such matters as risk bearing and incentive which have been canvassed largely from the point of view of industry, the question is equally one which affects the ordinary wage and salary earner: directly because of the impact of P.A.Y.E. on his wages or salary and indirectly because it is of vital import-

ance to all of us that there should be an adequate supply of capital for industry to ensure the maintenance of full employment and progressively improving standards for wage earners and the community as a whole. His Majesty's Government have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the inquiry should be a wide one covering the incidence and effects of all the taxes on income and extending to the taxation of wages and salaries as well as of business profits.
I have therefore recommended to His Majesty the setting up of a Royal Commission with terms of reference to the broad effect that it would inquire into the whole of the present system of taxation of profits and income, with particular reference to the taxation of business profits and the taxation of salaries and wages keeping in mind the need for maintaining the revenue. The precise terms of reference and the composition of the Royal Commission will be announced in due course.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: May I ask the Prime Minister if the Tucker Committee will make its report, or is it intended that the Royal Commission should supersede the Tucker Committee? We should hope that the Tucker Committee would first present its report.

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is proposed that the Tucker Committee should make its report, and the Royal Commission will take that report into consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Matrimonial Causes Bill [Lords], the Arbitration Bill [Lords], the Adoption Bill [Lords] and the Shops Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 17th October.
This Motion provides for the intention which I announced earlier. The Adjournment for which it provides is about the customary period and in itself is reasonable. I would only add what I have twice already said to the right hon. Gentleman, that if it becomes necessary for the House to be convened before 17th October the Government will, if they are so convinced, take the necessary steps. Moreover, if we receive representations from the Opposition or from other quarters of the House the Government will certainly take them fully into account and give them proper consideration in coming to their own conclusion as to whether they should make representations. We quite understand the circumstances in which we are adjourning. The House may take it from me that if it is necessary in the interests of the public house—[Laughter.]—it is almost a pity a Secret Session has not begun—in the public interest that the House should resume, the Government will take into consideration all the circumstances and if necessary take the appropriate steps.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I think the time for the Adjournment has almost come. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) may have something to say about it.
I wish to add only that the position is, the whole House feels, quite exceptional, unhappily exceptional, in a great many respects. The numbers on both sides of the House are very close but we do not want to make a particular point of that. If I understood aright the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, it was that, although it is for the Government to decide, nevertheless in conditions like this, if the House wished to come back, the Government would take account of the feelings or the spirit of a great part of the House. With that I would leave the matter. I hope very much that the occasion may not arise.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I add that I am sorry that the House is adjourning for such a long period. I think it would be better if we did not adjourn for that length of time. Might I put it to the Lord President of the Council that in considering whether the Government will call the House back they will not wait until some event is right upon us, but when they consider that events are so moving that it is necessary to take the House into their confidence, they will call us back at that time and give us due warning of what is happening.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that the Lord President of the Council has now answered in the affirmative the Question which I have put to the Prime Minister, which was answered by the Prime Minister in the negative, and has made it clear that if 250 Members ask for the House to be brought back the Government will bring the House back, I have nothing more to say. I would like to support what my right hon. Friend has said and agree that we should pass to the next Business. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison: I do not wish to be charged hereafter with having deceived the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). If he is happy by deceiving himself let his happiness continue.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I spy strangers.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 105 (Withdrawal of

Strangers from the House) put the Question, "That strangers do withdraw."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): (seated and covered): On a point of order. In the event of this being a Secret Session, will steps be taken to have the amplification system cut off?

Mr. Speaker: In the event of this being a Secret Session, the amplifiers and everything will be cut off.

The House divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 296.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[3.53 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A


Alport, C. J. M.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Horsbrugh, Miss F.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)


Arbuthnot, John
de Chair, S.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
De la Bère, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Astor, Hon. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Baker, P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hurd, A. R


Baldock, J. M.
Donner, P. W.
Hutchinson, G. (Ilford, W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Banks, Col. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hyde, H. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.


Beamish, Maj. T V. H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Bell, R. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Jennings, R.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Howard S (Kemptown)


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Eccles, D. M.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Kaberry, D.


Birch, Nigel
Erroll, F. J.
Keeling, E. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Black, C. W.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fort, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Boothby, R.
Foster, J. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Langford-Holt, J.


Bower, N.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Gage, C. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Braine, B.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lennox-Boyd, A T


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lindsay, Martin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Gammans, L. D.
Linstead, H. N.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
George, Lady M. Lloyd
Llewellyn, D


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Glyn, Sir R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gridley, Sir A.
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Grimond, J.
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S.W.)


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Low, A. R. W.



Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Harden, J. R. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Carson, Hon. E.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O


Channon, H
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
McAdden, S. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Clyde, J. L.
Hay, John
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Colegate, A.
Head, Brig. A. H.
McKibbin, A


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Heald, L. F.
Maclay, Hon. J S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heath, Edward
Maclean, F. H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W W
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Cranborne, Viscount
Higgs, J. M. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, R E


Crouch, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marples, A. E.


Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
Hollis, M. C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Cundiff, F. W.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hope, Lord J.
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)




Maude, J. C. (Exeter)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Teeling, William


Maudling, R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Mellor, Sir J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Molson, A. H. E.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Roper, Sir H.
Tilney, John


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ropner, Col. L.
Touche, G. C.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Turton, R. H.


Nabarro, G.
Russell, R. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicholls, H
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholson, G.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nield, B. (Chester)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Vosper, D. F.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Scott, Donald
Wade, D. W.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Nutting, Anthony
Smiles, Lt.-Col, Sir W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Oakshott, H. D.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Odey, G. W.
Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Snadden, W. McN.
Watkinson, H.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Soames, Capt. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Osborne, C.
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Pickthorn, K.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wills, G.


Pitman, I. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Powell, J. Enoch
Storey, S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Prescott, Stanley
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)
Wood, Hon. R.


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
York, C.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Studholme, H. C.
Young, Sir A. S. L.


Profumo, J. D.
Summers, G. S.



Raikes, H. V.
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rayner, Brig. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Mr. Drewe and


Redmayne, M.
Taylor, W J. (Bradford, N.)
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Cocks, F. S.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Adams, Richard
Coldrick, W.
Finch, H. J.


Albu, A. H.
Collick, P
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Collindridge, F.
Follick, M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cook, T. F.
Foot, M. M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Forman, J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cooper, J. (Daptford)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Awbery, S. S.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Ayles, W. H.
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bacon, Miss A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Baird, J.
Crawley, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Balfour, A.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Gibson, C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Crosland, C. A. R.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bartley, P.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gooch, E. G.


Benson, G.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)


Beswick, F.
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Daines, P.
Grenfell, D. R.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Woolwich, E.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grey, C. F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Blackburn, A. R.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gunter, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Booth, A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hale, J. (Rochdale)


Bottomley, A. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bowden, H. W.
Deer, G.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, W. W


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Diamond, J.
Hannan, W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Dodds, N. N.
Hardman, D. R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Donnelly, D.
Hardy, E A.


Brooks, T. J. (Normaton)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hargreaves, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Harrison, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Dye, S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hayman, F. H.


Burke, W. A.
Edelman, M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Burton, Miss E.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Herbison, Miss M.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hobson, C. R.


Callaghan, James
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Carmichael, James
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Houghton, Douglas


Champion, A. J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Ewart, R.
Hubbard, T.


Clunie, J.
Fernyhough, E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)







Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Moeran, E. W.
Sorensen, R W


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, W
Sparks, J. A.


Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Steele, T.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Morley, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon R R


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Moyle, A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G R. (Vauxhall)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Mulley, F. W.
Stross, Dr. B


Janner, B.
Murray, J. D.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon Edith


Jay, D. P. T.
Nally, W.
Sylvester, G. O


Jeger, G. (Goole)
Neal, H.
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)


Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Jenkins, R H
O'Brien, T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, I R. (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Orbach, M.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paget, R. T
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Timmons, J.


Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Kenyon, C.
Pannell, T. C.
Tomney, F.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


King, H. M.
Parker, J.
Usborne, Henry


Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Paton, J.
Vernon, Maj W F


Kinley, J.
Pearson, A.
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Peart, T. F.
Wallace, H. W


Lang, Rev. G.
Poole, Cecil
Watkins, T. E.


Lee, F. (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Porter, G.
Weitzman, D.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Pryde, D. J.
West, D. G.


Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, J.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rees, Mrs. D.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Logan, D. G.
Reeves, J.
Wigg, George


Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.


McAllister, G.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Wilkes, L.


MacColl, J. E.
Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W. A.


McGhee, H. G.
Richards, R.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


McInnes, J.
Robens, A.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


McLeavy, F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Royle, C.
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Winterbottom, R E. (Brightside)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Manuel, A. C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Woods, Rev. G. S


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wyatt, W. L.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Yates, V. F.


Mellish, R. J.
Simmons, C. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Messer, F.
Slater, J.



Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. William Whiteley and


Mitchison, G. R.
Snow, J. W.
Mr. R. J. Taylor.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: It has been decided by the House that our Debate must be in public, and I shall confine myself to stating facts which are certainly well-known to the Soviet Government and to the General Staffs of Europe and the United States. The most important things that I shall say I have already said in public before. I shall base myself on matter which has already appeared in the newspapers or been disclosed by various authorities in Europe or the United States.

I shall ask the Government a number of questions, but if they do not wish to answer them now that they have escaped into public Session, I shall not press them. I have little doubt that they could have been answered in private Session, as they are already within the limits I have prescribed of being certainly known to foreign Powers.

I had intended to open today with a statement of the strength of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Government. This would obviously give them no information which they do not already possess. But yesterday, in what seemed to me the most impressive part of his speech, the Minister of Defence gave us the figures on which the Government rely. There were, he said, 175 active divisions. This


I presume is a part of the much larger number, nearly double, which could be produced in a few months. Even if only half of the 175 were used against us in Western Europe, they could, therefore, launch over 80 divisions upon us without any further mobilisation.

The Minister of Defence also stated that one-third of these 175 divisions are mechanised or armoured. Sir, that is a tremendous statement. I see that Mr. Vinson, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives at Washington, whom I mentioned yesterday, quoted the total Russian tank strength as 40,000, or seven times that of the United States. Our figure of 6,000 British, given yesterday by the Minister of Defence, is comparable, I take it, to this estimate of 40,000

But even more important than the reserve or general stock of tanks is the number organised in formations. Could we be told, since so much has been disclosed, of the number of Soviet tanks now assembled on or near the Western Front in formations? Would 4,000 or 5,000 tanks in organised formations be an excessive estimate? In Korea we have seen how formidable even a few score of tanks can be, and how tough the heavy Russian tanks are. Any development and improvement in the bazooka and other anti-tank weapons would be greatly welcomed.

I do not know how well the Western Union Forces are equipped with the latest and largest patterns, but I cannot think that the threat of the enormous mass of the Soviet armour is in any way mastered, or that there is anything in use and service at the present time which could cope with the array of armoured avalanches we must expect on the outbreak of war, should war occur.

Now let us see what the Western Union could put against all this. The former war-time French Prime Minister, M. Reynaud, recently again a Minister, made some precise statements on this point last week, which have been published in the newspapers and which I do not think should escape the attention of the House. M. Reynaud said that we and our European Allies have in Western Germany two British Divisions, two American and three French. For the rest, he said the French have four divisions in Europe and, I think, the Belgians one, a total

of 12. I should think that M. Reynaud is tolerably well informed on these matters.

The French and the Belgian divisions must inevitably be hampered in their tactical efficiency by having to train the annual intake of conscripts. The two British divisions are of course largely composed of men completing their eighteen months' service, and are almost entirely dependent upon a numerous German civilian contingent for their transport, without which of course they cannot move. One of the two American divisions, I believe, is armoured, but I ask if the British have one full armoured division.

On this assumption, Western Union would have 12 divisions, against more than 80, and of these less than two are armoured, against anything from 25 to 30. The Russians know their own strength, but it is certain that they also know with great precision the Allied weakness and condition. Apart from agents, there are Communists all over Germany who see the troops living among them day after day, and we here in the House of Commons are entitled to ask the Government—are these figures, which I have just quoted, and their proportions, broadly speaking, true? Are the odds in ground troops on the Western Front eight or nine to one against us, or are they four, five, or six, or seven to one? Or is there no truth in this figure at all and are things much better? I hope the Prime Minister, if he is going to reply—or is it the Minister of Defence?

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): indicated assent.

Mr. Churchill: I hope the Minister of Defence, when he replies, will tell us. There is really no reason why we should not know what the Soviets and all the General Staffs of Europe know, and what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence must themselves have known for a long time. In a Secret Session, there would I think, have been no difficulty in giving the broad facts.
When, in March, in the Debate on the White Paper, I said in the House that it would be necessary and right to enable the Germans of Western Germany to take part in the defence of their hearths and homes from the hideous menace under


which they lie, the Prime Minister dismissed my advice as irresponsible. However, it is the advice which I understand the military commanders of the United States, at any rate, would give. At present, we have followed the principle that the only Germans who may be re-armed are the Communist Germans in the Eastern zone, who have been formed by the Soviets into a highly effective police army with powerful weapons and numbering 45,000 or 50,000 men—it may be more—and with considerable offshoots in the Communist cells and caches of arms known to exist in Western Germany.
I do not wonder that something like panic prevails along the Eastern frontiers of Western Germany. Every true German friend of reconciliation with the Western democratic world, and the redemption of their past by faithful service, knows that the lurking Communist in the neighbourhood has marked him down for early liquidation. How can there be any foundation for a helpful German policy under such conditions?
In all that I have said so far, I have only spoken of the Soviet forces with which we are confronted—eight or nine to one against us in infantry and artillery, and probably much more than that in tank formations. I have not mentioned the satellite Powers. Poland, under strict Russian control, with a Russian marshal at the head of her forces, has a powerful party army. Czechoslovakia has another army, though less trustworthy, and the arsenals of Skoda, possibly the largest arms plant now in Europe, are steadily pouring out their weapons. If the facts that I have stated cannot be contradicted by His Majesty's Government, the preparations of the Western Union to defend itself certainly stand on a far lower level than those of the South Koreans. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday with candour:
I will not conceal from the House that the Forces at present available, or in sight, fall a long way short of requirements estimated even on the most conservative basis. There is nothing to be gained by failing to recognise this fact."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 474.]
It is always, I think, true to say that one of the main foundations of the British sense of humour is under-statement, and this appears to be a very excellent example of that fact.
We may, no doubt, throw much of the blame on France and the Benelux countries, weakened by the disasters of the war, but do not let us imagine that we are not in danger ourselves. If, as M. Reynaud says, and I have no reason to dispute him, the Soviet armies, with their armoured columns, could be at Calais and reach the Channel—or the Atlantic, that is to say—before any substantial reinforcements from the United States could arrive upon the scene—if that is true, then we ourselves, although protected from an immediate incursion by the anti-tank obstacle of the Channel, with its waves, tides and storms, will be subjected to a bombardment by rocket-propelled and guided missiles—I am not speaking of atomic bombs—incomparably more severe than anything we have endured or imagined.
The Soviet Government picked up and developed all the Germans knew about this form of war. Peenemunde fell into their hands, and all the German secrets of this new phase of warfare, on which Hitler had set his final hopes, but the development of which was cut short by our advance—all this new phase of warfare has been developed in five years of intensive study and production.
The Russians do not need to come to the coast to plant their batteries. Very long ranges are within the compass of these weapons, and they can pick and choose their places. If we were alone, I might give some indication of the inconvenience which might be caused thereby. All this is true, and may be near—how near no one knows for certain, except the dictator oligarchy in the Kremlin, who accept no moral principles as known to us, but who are able to pursue, year after year, their calculated plans for world conquest without being concerned with public opinion or elections or any of the scruples which rule the Western and the Christian world.
Here I leave the first part of my subject—the relative strength of the armies and of the tanks upon the Western Front. Let us now look to the air. Immense figures have been published in America and in this country about the Soviet air forces—25,000 military aircraft produced yearly was one figure. The Minister of Defence said yesterday that the Russian forces—he was speaking of their total


military forces—are backed by 19,000 military aircraft, including jet aircraft of the latest design, both bombers and fighters.
But, on the Western front, which is the matter which I have most in point at the moment, in fighter and bomber aircraft, how many have they got in full commission? Would 4,000 or 5,000 or 6,000 be too large an estimate? I should be greatly relieved if the Government were able to answer this question in a reassuring manner. But, considering all we have been told of the Russian strength, I can see no reason why, even under the conditions of a public Session, it should not be answered. But, even if we take it as only 4,000, how many have we got? We and the Americans and the Western Allies, how many have we got on the Continent—I am not speaking of home forces—to sustain our Armies of perhaps 12 divisions, as stated by M. Reynaud, against 80 or 90? Here, again, even if we were in Secret Session, I would not ask the Government to state the exact figure, but could they say, for instance, that we have a half, a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, or a seventh of what we know we have to face? I do not press them for a reply unless they wish to give one.
Upon the question of quality, no doubt we may hope to have superiority in machines and pilots, but this is by no means certain. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that a large proportion of the Russian aircraft are of the highest quality. They have certainly made great improvements on the jet aeroplanes in regard to which we so lightheartedly furnished them with our specimen engines a few years ago.
There are other aspects of the Russian air menace not concerned with the mainland of Europe with which I must now deal. If the Russian Armies reached or approached the coast of France and held the airfields there from which we were attacked by the Germans 10 years ago, they could, I fear, outnumber us in the air by a far larger number of machines than Hitler ever had. Anything that the Government choose to say upon the fighter forces available for the defence of London and our vital feeding seaports which would reassure the House would give the deepest satisfaction to us all.
But there is another aspect of the air defence of Britain which is even more grave and intense. Two years ago, the Government agreed that the Americans should establish a bombing base in East Anglia from which they could use the atom bomb upon the Russian cities and keypoints. The Americans have other bases, but this is one of the most important. We on this side of the House do not criticise the Government for taking this very serious step for which, in any case, they had the large Socialist majority of the last Parliament at their disposal.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. Churchill: Not at this point. All this has been in the newspapers for a long time. I would not have asked the Government, even in Secret Session, for the exact numbers of the American offensive forces for using the atomic bomb on Soviet Russia which are located here in this island. However, the Prime Minister stated them on Monday as 10,000 men and 180 planes in three bomber groups. To this, the Minister of Defence added last night that there were fighter squadrons also, so we may be sure that the Russians know the main facts pretty well. It is on this foundation that the Communists base their oft-repeated charge that Britain is an aircraft carrier moored to attack the Soviet Union. It is also, this base in East Anglia, our major defence against the consequences which would follow or accompany a Russian onslaught in Europe, and it is a vital part of the atomic bomb deterrent, which is what we are living on now.
More than two years have passed since this base was established and became public. It was obvious, whatever else was done or not done, that from that moment the utmost endeavours should have been used to make the base secure by every form of anti-aircraft artillers and by the most perfect and elaborate development of radar, and, above all, by the largest number of the latest fighter aircraft which we could produce ourselves or get from the United States. I hope this has been done. I naturally do not ask for a detailed reply, but one fact makes me anxious—it has been mentioned before, and I must refer to it now for it may be typical of much else


in our present administrative policy. I simply cannot comprehend a policy which while, on the one hand, taking this extraordinary risk of establishing this base, can disperse or distribute so large a proportion of the jet aircraft in the production of which British genius has held the lead.
We wonder how many jet aeroplane engines we have distributed to our friends or sold to foreign countries. I do not ask for a reply in detail; I will content myself with reminding the House, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday, of what has been published in the newspapers and admitted by Ministers, namely, that 100 of these jets were sold to the Argentine, which lays its claims to the Falkland Islands and is at this moment in wrongful occupation of British territory in the Antarctic. It has also been stated, and not denied when raised in the House, that 110 were sold, traded, or given to Egypt—written off against sterling balances, or the like—to Egypt of all countries at the present time, which was actually blocking the Canal in violation of the treaty, and no doubt given to them in order to enable them to face the new State of Israel. Here at any rate are 210 machines, only, of course, a proportion of what have been dispersed or disposed of, out of the total of these invaluable jets, and of these 210 we have been deprived by an act of improvidence beyond description or compare.
We have the Auxiliary Air Force, which is an important element in our home defence—about 20 squadrons—and is manned by very high quality volunteers really worthy of the finest weapons which our factories can make. This Auxiliary Air Force could all have been re-armed by now with the jets we have distributed to these foreign countries. I simply cannot understand it. In the 50 years since I entered this House, I have never seen anything quite like it. I made my protests and appeals to the Prime Minister more than a year ago. Perhaps he or the Minister of Defence will tell us tonight that at least the sale of our jets to neutrals has now been stopped.
But this particular illustration of the manner in which the policy of the Government has been incoherent or uncoordinated, ugly though it be, must not draw our minds from the general picture

which I am presenting to the House. I have dealt with the relative strengths of the armies and the armoured forces on both sides in Europe. I have spoken of the Air Force, though I have not attempted to go into actual or relative strengths, except to state that we are, I believe, outnumbered as we have never been before.
Now I come, thirdly, to the naval sphere and the Soviet U-boats. Reliable naval reference books estimate the present Russian U-boat fleet at 360 divided, no doubt, between the Pacific and the West, of which between 100 and 200 are ocean-going and capable of high speeds. These seem to me very large figures, and I am not at all accepting them as final figures, but what is the truth about them? I do not see why the Minister of Defence should not give us his best estimate, considering the information which has been given about other portions of the Russian forces.
Many of these boats, we are told, are of 20 knots. A modern 20-knot submerged U-boat would, it is calculated, be able to search five times the area of water that was covered by the last war U-boats with their maximum submerged speed of nine knots. What is the truth of this? There can be no harm in giving this information to the public. All German technical discoveries and, no doubt, some German technical aid have been at the command of the Soviets since the war. Considering that we and the world have been told the deadly details of the American atomic force in East Anglia, surely the facts about the Russian U-boat construction can be given on the best estimate that is available.
When I went to the Admiralty at the beginning of the last war the Germans had 30 ocean-going U-boats with a maximum underwater speed of nine knots. Only 30 And now the figure of 300 is mentioned; but it may be much less and yet be most grave. I am not committing myself to any precise figure, but they only had 30 then. I hope it may be possible to reassure us on the present position.
I do not know, nor do I ask, what resources we have in up-to-date anti-U-boat craft, but I doubt very much whether they are in number equal actually, or still less proportionately, to what those who are called the "guilty men"


of the last war had prepared. I believe it is probably true to say that the Russian-Soviet U-boat menace to our trans-ocean Atlantic life-line and world communications, which also comprise all American reinforcements for Europe, would be far more severe than was the German U-boat force in their attacks of 1939 and 1940; and this seemed quite enough then.
We have, however, the Air Force Coastal Command, and in this and in multiplication of aircraft carriers and antisubmarine vessels lies our hope, and, I trust, our policy. But it was said yesterday that the Coastal Command is below its approved strength, both in aircraft and in their personnel. I hope this may be contradicted, and if it cannot be contradicted I trust it will be made good. I do not feel I should be exaggerating if I said that the Soviet attack by modernised German U-boats in Russian hands upon our ocean life-line would, for a year at least, perhaps for more, be far more severe than was the Hitler attack in 1939 and 1940. I ask specifically if the Minister of Defence will deal with this in his speech, because it is fundamental and vital.
Summing up the scene, it looks as if there is at present no effective defence in Western Europe beyond the Channel, and that the Russian advance to the Channel or towards it will bring us under air bombardment, apart from the atomic bomb, far worse than we have ever endured. Secondly, it would be very bad for us if the Russians were to gain the command of the air over the Channel and over this island by an overpowering use of numbers. On the sea we are also at a serious disadvantage, as I have just described, compared with the last war. It is, perhaps, worth while for the House and the country to weigh these facts attentively. If they can be substantially corrected, no one will be more fervently thankful than I.
If the comparison of British and Western Union forces ended at this point, with a survey of land, sea and air, our position might well be judged forlorn. We might feel the need of the striking phrase used the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) when he said, "While there is death there is hope." Fortunately, there is a fourth vast sphere of defence in which the United States have enormous and measureless

superiority. Two years ago I said in the country, at Llandudno:
If it were not for the stocks of atomic bombs now in the trusteeship of the United States, there would be no means of stopping the subjugation of Western Europe by Communist machinations backed by Russian armies and enforced by political police.
Again, I said on the same occasion:
Nothing stands between Europe today and complete subjugation to Communist tyranny but the atomic bomb in American possession.
It is to this aspect that I must now recur. I understand that we have no atom bombs of our own. Considering how far we were forward in this matter during the war—we could not ourselves undertake it because we were under fire, that was the only reason why we did not—and that we earnestly pressed the Americans into it, as my conversations with President Roosevelt in 1942, which are on record, will show, it is remarkable, considering all this, how quickly we were denied the confidence of the United States after the war was over, and how we have never been able in five years with all our own gathered knowledge to make the atom bomb ourselves.
I also said in 1948:
What will happen when the Russians get the atomic bomb themselves and have accumulated a large store? You can judge for yourselves what will happen then by what is happening now. If these things are done in the green wood, what will be done in the dry? If they can continue month after month disturbing and tormenting the world, trusting to our Christian and altruistic inhibitions against using this strange new power against them, what will they do when they themselves have large quantities of atomic bombs?
And further:
The Western nations will be far more likely to reach a lasting settlement, without bloodshed, if they formulate their just demands while they have the atomic power and before the Russian Communists have got it too.
No attention was paid to this. I fully realise the difficulties and the dangers of such a policy and it did not rest entirely with us.
But now things have definitely worsened. It is painful in every respect to be told, as we were officially told some months ago, that the Russians have been able to gain the secret of the atom bomb through Communist traitors in the American and also notably in the British service. But between having the secret and making any large number of


bombs, there is undoubtedly a considerable interval.
It is this interval which we must not waste. We must endeavour to make up the melancholy leeway in military preparations which oppresses us today, and we must never abandon the hope that a peaceful settlement may be reached with the Soviet Government if a resolute effort is made on the basis not of our present weakness but of American atomic strength. This is the policy which gives the best chance of preventing a fearful war and of securing our survival should it break upon us.
I do not expect that any of the Allies know how many atomic bombs the Soviet Government have yet been able to make, but—here I am only stating my personal opinion—I do not think that they have made many yet, or that their rate of production is at present rapid. As I say, I only candidly state my own personal view to the House. It would be very wrong that the House should attach any undue importance to it, but it is one of the stepping stones upon which my thought advances.
I see, however, that I said to the House earlier in this Session, two months ago, that if the Americans had a stock-pile of, say, 1,000, and the Russians had only 50, and we got those 50, it would not be pleasant. I was surprised that this crude remark did not affect opinion. But then, only two months ago there was a different atmosphere. All these matters, quite wrongly, seemed outside the range of ordinary politics and daily life. Now they dominate the minds of all thinking and patriotic men, and will increasingly do so as the months pass by.
It was stated officially at some Lobby conference with, I think, the Home Office, according to the "Daily Telegraph" of Tuesday, that each bomb costs as much as a battleship. This, of course, is ludicrous nonsense. It might be that the first two or three would cost that amount or more if they were saddled with the whole expense of research and production up to date, but once they were in production the cost would certainly be less than one-twentieth or even one-fiftieth of a modern battleship. Nevertheless I still adhere to my feeling—I am quite ready to be instructed by those who have the advantages of official information—that so far,

very few have been produced, and the extraordinary efforts which the Soviet Government are making to obtain even small quantities of uranium seem—I only say "seem"—to justify a hopeful view.
If this should happily be true, there can be no doubt that the United States possesses at this moment a superiority so vast that a major act of Russian aggression is still subject to an effective and even perhaps decisive deterrent. It is for this reason I have ventured on several occasions to express the opinion that a third world war is not imminent, and I cherish the hope that it may still be averted.
I noticed in the Debate on Civil Defence on Monday, at which I regret I was not present, that there was a considerable tendency, not confined to any one part of the House, to minimise the effects of the atomic bomb, and the Government have issued a carefully thought out booklet on this subject. No doubt, it is right nearly always to take a robust and cheerful view, but I expect this booklet, from what I have been able to learn of it, looking through it—I have not had time to read it with the attention it deserves—will be more cheering to the Russians than to us, because the atomic bomb is the only weapon on land, sea and air in which the Americans—that is to say the Allies—can possibly have overwhelming superiority during the next two or three years.
I should have thought, therefore, that it was a mistake in propaganda to weaken or discount the deterrents upon those who are already so much stronger in every other sphere except this. We shall need the whole weight of these deterrents to gain us the time which remains while this great advantage of ours endures. We are, of course, dependent upon the United States both for the supply of the bomb and largely for the means of using it. Without it, we are more defenceless than we have ever been. I find this a terrible thought. In 1940 I had good hopes that we should win the battle in the air even at heavy odds and that if we won, the Navy could stave off and repel invasion until eventually vast air power was developed here which would bring us out of our troubles, even if left alone. But now I cannot feel the same sense of concrete assurance.
We must never despair. We must never give in. We have over 5 million men and women who had service in the Armed Forces in the last war. We have three-quarters of a million who have been trained since, and there are nearly 700,000 now in the Armed Forces, and many thousands in our Volunteer and Auxiliary Forces. Our industrial capacity and that of the free world is gigantic. Our scientific and technical ability is unsurpassed. We may well have time to reorganise and develop the mighty latent strength of Britain surrounded by her Commonwealth.
But I warn the House that we have as great dangers to face in 1950 and 1951 as we had 10 years ago. Here we are with deep and continuing differences between us in our whole domestic sphere, and faced with dangers and problems which all our united strength can scarcely overcome. It was this that led me to hope that in Private Session the sense of the corporate life of the House of Commons might have asserted itself. But that has been forbidden by the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "By the House."] It has been forbidden by the Prime Minister, and at his request the House has prevented our meeting together and talking things over among ourselves in secret.
It is with deep grief that I have to say these things to the House, and to reflect that it is only five years ago almost to a month when we were victorious, respected and safe. The whole burden does not rest upon this country, nor upon the Government of this country. They have done several important things, like establishing compulsory National Service and the East Anglian American base. They have fostered the closest relations with the United States and our European friends, and they have maintained active resistance to Communism in its various forms.
Nevertheless, I say they bear a fearful accountability. The Prime Minister and his party have had power, men, and money never enjoyed before by any Government in time of peace. If they had asked for more, Parliament would have granted it to them and we would have given it our full support. It was with a sense of relief that I felt entitled to say in March that we could accept no responsibility for the present state of our defences. That does not mean that we will not strive to help the Government, in spite of

their total lack of consideration for our wishes and point of view, in every measure, however unpopular, which they may propose and which we recognise is aimed solely at securing national survival.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: It is very difficult for a back bencher to follow the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on the subject of defence, of which his knowledge is unrivalled, and I think I shall express the feeling of the House in saying that there is hardly anyone here who would challenge his analysis of the present balance of power between East and West. I should like to try to add some comments on that analysis, accepting it as basically true. One thing struck me about his speech. It was an unconscious tribute to the speech of the Minister of Defence, for there was no criticism of any sort of the proposals for rearmament put forward by the Government, even though the right hon. Gentleman had had 24 hours to think over the Minister's speech. I think we can feel that the Government have done well when, after 24 hours, that doughty expert could find nothing wrong in detail with the proposals put forward by the Minister of Defence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Other back benchers may find things wrong; I only point out that the right hon. Gentleman spoke in no way about the concrete and practical proposals put forward by the Minister.
The second point which struck me was that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to lay all his emphasis on the American superiority in atom bombs as the strength of our defence. I would agree with him about Western Europe, but I would agree with hon. Members behind him that the superiority in atom bombs, as we have seen in Korea, is no sort of deterrent against localised actions, one after another, which might well bring us to the position where, having never been able to use the ultimate deterrent, we had lost the whole of the world except Europe. I should have thought that instead of relying solely on the atom bomb, what we ought to study, in this Debate, was how the Western world, which is not prepared to use the atom bomb in a small local action and which will use it only when it is driven to it by a frontal declaration of world war by the Russians—how we in the Western world, deprived of that instrument, because we are civilised, can


defend ourselves with our land, sea and air forces against the threat, of which one example is Korea.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my saying one thing in a somewhat party spirit. I have noticed that this Defence Debate has had more of an undercurrent of party manoeuvre than any Defence Debate in the previous Parliament. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's very remarkable speech, I still have the impression that the constant demand for a Secret Session was much more designed to restore the atmosphere of a war-time Parliament, in which the right hon. Gentleman ruled supreme and in which he could make the sort of speech which would restore his war-time reputation, than to obtain any information from the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman's demand for a corporate spirit from this House, following the ardent applause given to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) in his demand for a Coalition, made me feel that there was something going on which was closer to home than the subject of Defence. On that point I should like to make two comments. If we are really concerned with national unity in the present crisis, I would repeat the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Wyatt)—the best thing the right hon. Member for Woodford could do is not only to withdraw, but to withdraw from public life altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that in all solemnity, and I think hon. Members on all sides of the House will know what I am talking about.
Secondly, I would make this comment on the talk about a Coalition. If a Third World War breaks out, a Coalition may be necessary, but in this period, when it is our aim to prevent a world war, I believe that any talk of Coalition divides this country at a moment of crisis far more than it unites it.

Mr. Bellenger: Whatever my hon. Friend may think of my remarks yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not much."]—whatever he may think, I can assure him that they came from myself alone, without consultation with any other Member of the House.

Mr. Crossman: I never suggested otherwise. I am relieved to hear that no one

else shared my right hon. Friend's indiscreet views.
I want to deal with one other subject, which has been raised throughout all the speeches from the Opposition, and implicitly was raised by the right hon. Member for Woodford. There was constant implication that the Government had neglected the subject of defence, for three years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That applause helps my argument. It was suggested that three years had been frittered away, that the country had been allowed to drift into deadly peril. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thank hon. Gentlemen opposite for that applause.
I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen who say that with such urgency today, whether, in the General Election campaign, they proposed as the first point in their manifesto that taxation should be maintained to pay for increased armaments. If the party opposite had discovered that the country was in deadly peril, were they not somewhat irresponsible last February to promise increased social services and decreased taxation when now, a few months later, they say that we should have been spending millions more on defence? It was no surprise to us to find that Mr. Baldwin's performance in 1935 had been repeated by the party opposite.

Brigadier Head: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. If he had listened more carefully to what was said by this party on this side on the subject of Defence, he would have realised that the complaint was not that more should have been spent, but that £780 million and 700,000 men had been wasted through inefficiency.

Mr. Crossman: I listened to every speech in the Debate. The hon. and gallant Member does not know that many of his hon. Friends, in his absence, demanded that more money should be spent now and complained that not enough money had been spent in the past. I do not want to stress this, however; it is obviously a painful subject for the Opposition. I want, instead, to turn to points of agreement between us.
We all welcome one thing and it is that, by and large—[Interruption.]

Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of order. We cannot hear the


speech because of the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Hon. Members must keep order.

Earl Winterton: On a point of order. Is it not in accord with the traditions of this House, when an hon. Member makes a speech of the kind which is being made, in a situation of this gravity, that hon. Members on this side of the House may express their strong disapproval?

Mr. Crossman: I will now continue, and I should like to tell the noble Lord that I have dealt with the party side and wish to come to a point on which even he, I think, may possibly agree. I think the best thing about yesterday's Debate and the Debate today, including the right hon. Gentleman's speech, has been that, with one exception, it has been agreed that the main object of our defence policy now is not to achieve victory in an inevitable war, but, first, to prevent a war if possible and, second, as a secondary objective, to win it if the disaster of war comes upon us. I have been greatly relieved to find that, because hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their speeches and in writing letters to "The Times," have been saying that the war has already started, and that we can dispense with legalistic formulae or any close attention to the charters of certain organisations we belong to: we are fighting this war and that we must not be nice in fighting it.
Of course, if we accepted that view we should find ourselves precipitating the war we are trying to prevent. The Government have an infinitely more difficult task. They have to maintain the ascendancy of diplomacy over strategy in order to isolate the Korean struggle—in order, for instance to persuade the Chinese Communists not to enter into the struggle and so to spread it. That is one side of their job—a job of policy and diplomacy. Simultaneously, and equally, they have to be 100 per cent. behind the United Nations police action in Korea. We have to be both belligerents and peacemakers at the same time. That is a job which I thought was achieved with conspicuous skill in the speech of the Minister of Defence. It combined

in exactly the right quantities the determination to fight if necessary, and the reasonableness which shows that we are not provoking a war.
I would suggest that many of the criticisms of the Opposition are frustrated by that thought. Of course, if we thought war inevitable then life would be relatively simple. Then everything would be concentrated upon the single objective. We should accept the re-arming of the Germans and General Franco, and principles would go by the board. Everything would be seen in terms of warlike strategy. Thank heavens, that is not the position today. Today, everything has to be balanced between the policy necessary for preserving the peace and the defence which may ultimately be necessary if we fail in our prior objective. I must say that I am greatly relieved that we have not got a Coalition Government to fulfil those arduous purposes.
I should like to say one word to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House on the subject of troops going to Korea. I was a little disturbed, if I may talk quite frankly, at the reaction of some hon. Gentlemen here on that subject. After all, we have said that we stand behind the United Nations in Korea. After all, the Americans, some of them not very well trained, are losing their lives. If this country holds, as it should, that it stands behind the United Nations in Korea, and refuses to collaborate in Formosa, because that is not an affair of the United Nations, then we must make that absolutely clear in our actions.
Collaboration is a very difficult thing between this country, which is not yet at war, and the Americans, who are at war. It is the collaboration between the two countries in 1940 in reverse. We tend to be the isolationists today. We tend to be the people who feel a bit nervous about dipping our toes in the river. Let us be careful that our moral lectures are not rationalisations for trying to keep out except on paper. I must honestly say that I feel in a sense relieved that we are sending troops to Korea. I know it is a shock to the people of this country. But it is a shock without which our contribution to the United Nations would have been meaningless, and I think it is important for us, if we are going to use our influence with America to prevent her from taking rash action in


Formosa, to be absolutely above board and in the clear about our support of the United Nations' action in Korea.
As for the problem of the conscripts, I would ask the Secretary of State for War or the Minister of Defence whether it would not be possible to make use of the rule we had in the war that no boy who is under 19 should be sent. If we had that rule as we had in the last war, we should regard the United Nations' action to prevent a major war as something in which life may be sacrificed at least as conscientiously as in a third world war, which would destroy everything altogether. If it is worth doing, I am afraid that we have to make the ultimate sacrifice to do it. I am sorry to say that, but it seemed to me vital that it should be said.
I want to draw one lesson from Korea which was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) used a very clever phrase. He said the Russians were carrying out an "invasion by proxy." It was a clever phrase, but, like so many clever phrases, it concealed the formidable truth, which is that the invasion of South Korea has not been undertaken by the Russians but by North Korean troops, trained in five years to be able to undertake a major operation of war. That is to say, the Russians have trained a colonial army in five years. [Interruption.] I am not saying that it is right. I am saying that the really formidable fact is that they have built there a colonial army in five years to fight with a national ardour and fanaticism. General MacArthur has completely failed to train a colonial army on the other side. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh. I am only judging by the results of the war.

Mr. Somerset de Chair: I suppose the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Koreans have always been regarded as among the finest fighters in the Far East, second only to the Manchurians, and that, therefore, it is not difficult to train them.

Mr. Crossman: I am simply pointing to the fact that if the Koreans are the finest fighters in the Far East, 10 million North Koreans are now licking 20 million South Koreans plus the Americans, which

is a very sorry fact. I grant that the South Koreans did not have heavy equipment. I only say that it is a sinister fact. We have to note that "invasion by proxy" means getting nations to fight fanatically on one's own side.
I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford talk of British and American and French co-operation quite complacently. But I say to the House that if we rely on the white nations only to preserve world freedom, and say it is the white nations who can defend liberty everywhere, and believe that we need not worry about the coloured peoples, because they cannot be trained or because they are "inferior," we are doomed to defeat by Communism. Unless we have allies who are coloured, who will fight with the same fanaticism for our cause of democracy as the North Koreans fight for Communism, we are outnumbered, and our superiority in technique and equipment will be as insignificant as that of knights of the Middle Ages who were overwhelmed by common people who had not such elaborate equipment—people from below, who fought with the strength of numbers and faith.
Have any of the nations who are representatives of democracy got such coloured allies today? I reply, one country has, and one alone. It is not America. It is this country—thanks to the Commonwealth policy of the last five years. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite try to talk party politics. I am trying to talk serious sense. If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to say it, the fact that India, Pakistan and Ceylon—Asiatic peoples—are part of our Commonwealth, and ready to fight for their national existence, is the one encouraging factor in the Far East today, If all the British and American soldiers in the world, and all the howitzers and tanks and atom bombs were put into India they would not have availed against Communism as much as the knowledge by the Indian or the Pakistani that he was a free man on our side.

Major Tufton Beamish: rose—

Mr. Crossman: If the House will forgive me, I want to leave time which will allow many other Members to speak, and I cannot do so if I continually give way.
There has been from the Opposition a great deal of criticism of the Government's policy in Burma. I agree that there is an inefficient Government there, but I ask the Opposition to note that Burma democrats are today fighting Communists on their own; that they have regained half the territory; and that not one white soldier has had to go in to help them. I say that in Asia it is more important that the Asians should themselves fight on our side for their own country, because when we have to defend their country for them, we have half lost the war before it is started. The basic defence issue today is this: in terms of white Europeans and Americans against Russian Communists, we have no chance of winning the third world war—none whatsoever. Despite all the atom bombs, if we allow ourselves to be isolated as privileged whites, the overwhelming superiority of numbers will, in the end, wear us down.
Nothing was more terrible than the report in "The Times" of the experience of the G.I. in Korea. We are told that he has to treat every civilian as an enemy. We know from our own experiences in Palestine and Greece that against a guerilla movement harboured by the majority of the people no white army can prevail in the long-run. Millions can be spent on armaments, but everything depends on getting the people on your side, at least to the extent of preferring your rule to that of the Communists.
Let us be clear about the contrast here between Europe and the Far East. I would say today that if the Russians marched into Europe they would not be able to trust the Czech Army, or the Polish Army, or the Hungarian Army, because they have violated the principle of national self-determination in Europe. They cannot trust those troops, thank heaven. That is one of the things that restrains them. Unfortunately, in the Far East Communism is identified in millions of minds, not, if I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones) simply with filling empty stomachs, but with national liberation. Again, if I may say so to my hon. Friend, national liberation makes a man fight harder than an empty stomach; curiously enough, it is more important to him.
The Communist has captured the whole spirit, which says, "I want to liberate

my nation from Western Imperialism," and I say to this House—because I think we are allowed sometimes to be proud of of our country—that in the last five years the British people and the British Commonwealth have built the only genuine bulwark against Communism, which is the Commonwealth, with a friendly Burma. She chose to go outside: she is fighting on her own because she chose to go outside, but I hope she will be back.
In Malaya even, with all our difficulties, we do at last have Malayans volunteering for their own police force; we do have at last a sense that, though there is a lot still to do, our side means their side and does not mean oppression. That is why I want to stress in this Debate that anybody who tries to think about the defence of Western democracy by totalling up, as the right hon. Gentleman did, the number of divisions and squadrons, and the number of white Americans, British and French, is leading us into defeat. The ultimate issue is who wins the soul of the colonial peoples throughout the world.
If this country, by an untoward act in Formosa, permitted the Chinese Communists to be dragged into this war against us, nothing could prevent, in the long run, the loss of every one of our positions in the Far East. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. It is as serious as that. That is why the policy of the Government of concentrating on Korea is so wise, because in the Far East the people are suspicious of Europeans, and if we make our cause the cause of the United Nations and not merely the cause of the Europeans or of Western democracy, that is a cause which can inspire a Burma nation, or an Indian nation.
Observe that the Indians have supported sanctions. That is a tremendous achievement when we consider the position of India five years ago. Observe, too, that the neutrality of India could very easily be produced by a foolhardy Anglo-American policy vis-á-vis the Chinese Communists—very easily indeed. To produce the neutrality of India is to produce, without the loss of a single man or gun, our defeat in the Far East. Those seem to me the central issues which we ought to discuss in assessing our strength and our weakness in a Defence Debate.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: rose—

Mr. Crossman: I really cannot give way, because I have one further point to make before sitting down.
Having shown that our re-armament is vital for the re-moralisation of our friends, I want now to turn to the effect of our re-armament on the Russians. I am one of those people who have for some years felt dubious about whether the argument of force was the only argument the Russians could understand, and I should like to tell the House of an experience I had the day before yesterday which, I must say, has brought me nearer to the conclusion that really very simple arguments are the only effective ones on the Russians.
The day before yesterday I was asked to meet Mr. Ilya Ehrenburg who, as the House knows, has been invited over here by the British Peace Campaign as a cooing dove of peace. I happened to sit in a room, with others, talking with him for three hours—[Laughter.] I would just say to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), who seems to find that amusing, that it is worth meeting one's enemy in order to understand him.
I thought it interesting to hear a comment which Mr. Ehrenburg made when somebody asked him what he thought of the mood of the British people. He said, "Well, of course, it is very much better than the American mood, because the Americans are vagabonds and they wander into other people's countries. The British are a rooted people, a sensible people; and, of course, a people who have experienced war; but they are not such a sensible people as the French people." I then asked him, "Do you mean, Mr. Ehrenburg, that the French have already been defeated and we have not yet been defeated?" Then he said these words, which I shall never forget, "Britain and France are physically and morally incapable of waging war. The only difference is, the British do not know it." I could not help looking back 12 years when somebody else came to England, and went round, consorting with people who told him that everything was all right, some of them on the other side of the House. Ribbentrop made a great

mistake. He met only the people who were ready to capitulate.

Earl Winterton: Those on the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. Crossman: I suggest to the noble Lord that we should consider this subject with relative seriousness.
Ribbentrop made the mistake of finding here only people who would tell him what he wanted to be told. One of the difficulties of totalitarians is that they never discover the morale of the other side, because the people who are sent to find out report back in the wrong way. I must say that it rather distressed me to think that Mr. Ilya Ehrenburg—who by the way, does not speak a word of English—was going to go back and say to Mr. Stalin that he had studied the morale of the British people and knew we were morally incapable of waging war.

Mr. Eden: As we are dealing with history, on this totalitarian analogy it is not uninteresting perhaps to observe this. I suppose Ribbentrop saw more of me than of most Englishmen, and I did try to impress him with our point of view. But I had the same difficulty as the hon. Gentleman, that what we say to them makes no impression at all. What they say is the only thing in which they are interested. I do not want to delay the House, but may I add this one sentence? Upon one occasion I tried to impress this upon him. He gave me a long account of what the Führer said, and I said, "Please, Ambassador, your task is to explain England to the Führer?" He could not understand what I meant.

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman has taken the words out of my mouth. I am quite certain that nothing that I said to Mr. Ehrenburg had any effect whatsoever. This is what made me feel singularly depressed by the conversation.
I conclude with this thought: there are two alternative conclusions that the Russians can draw from Korea. They can draw the conclusion that they have proved the Americans to be weak and ill-prepared; they can draw the conclusion that the British are degenerate bourgeois; and, now that they have succeeded in probing one place they can probe here, there and everywhere until


they have gained the world. In that case, we shall have a third world war. Nothing will prevent it if they draw that conclusion from the experience of North Korea.
There is another conclusion which they could draw if they could only understand the outside world. Democracies always start badly because they make difficulties for themselves at the starting point and have no preparation. But Korea should prove to them that every time they move in that particular way from now on, they will be met with increasing forces and increased preparations, and that, therefore, it may be good to come to terms with the Western World. In the last resort, the future of the world does not depend on anything that we do or even, if I may say so to some of my hon. Friends here, on what the Americans do. Ultimately, it depends on which of these two conclusions the Russians draw from our re-armament Debate this afternoon, from our decision to send British troops to Korea, and from the present attitude of the British people.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), has made many speeches to the House of the same kind as the one to which we have just listened on all sorts of theses and, as this afternoon, be has argued successfully against himself. Before coming, as I think he came at the end of his speech, to a very reasonable conclusion, he manages to beat about. This afternoon at the start of his speech, he completely destroyed the atmosphere which all of us hoped to see in the House during this Debate. I can only hope that if we had had a private Session he would not have thought it worth while making a speech like that, because he would not have had any Press to report him.

Mr. Crossman: I should have made exactly the same speech.

Mr. Low: If in those circumstances he would have made the same speech, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman lacks a sense of atmosphere and a sense of responsibility in this serious time of danger. The hon. Gentleman is gifted with a very clever mind, and it is a tragedy that he so often misuses it in the course of his speeches in this House.
Let me deal with some of the extraordinary things that he said at the beginning of his speech. Let me take first the ludicrous suggestion that my right hon. Friend's purpose in demanding a Secret Session was sinister and one based on his personal position and not on the national interest. What a ludicrous suggestion that is, if the hon. Gentleman and the House will only think it out. Is it really sensible to suppose that a politician imbued with that purpose would put forward a proposal which is going to deny him any publicity at all? What more ludicrous suggestion could there be than that?
But I think that there was an even more ludicrous suggestion which the hon. Gentleman made, and that was that the speech of my right hon. Friend was made, as it were, in support of the proposals that the Government made to us yesterday. Certainly he supported the proposals so far as they went, but if the hon. Gentleman listened to the speech, as he did, and accepted the analysis, as he said he did, surely he could draw the reasonable conclusions that the ordinary man of common sense would draw from that analysis. I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman saw fit to make this ridiculous and contemptible attack upon my right hon. Friend.
His third suggestion was that my right hon. Friend should withdraw from public life. Yet he implied by what he said about the analysis of that great speech, that he applauded it and accepted it. Nobody else had made that analysis in the Debate which we have had on Defence, and I say that nobody else could make that analysis as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.

Commander Pursey: That is absolute nonsense; the figures are available to everybody.

Mr. Low: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should know that I am not speaking of the information and figures which his speech contained. I am dealing with the form which the speech took and the analysis which was given to the House.
I want, in as few minutes as possible after that short introduction, to refer to the Government's own proposals against the background of this Debate. The statement of the Minister of Defence yesterday was a careful diagnosis of the situation. It was lucid—much more


lucid, if I may say so, than any previous speech that we have had from him, and certainly more lucid than any speech which we have had from his predecessor. But it was very alarming. It was alarming for what he said and for the disclosures it made, and even more alarming for what the Government refuse to do. He said:
It is our purpose to show here and now that aggression does not, and cannot, pay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 473.]
He showed us how far short we are of being certain that we can do that today. He was quite frank. I suppose that he would agree in principle that, if we want to prevent aggression in 1950 or 1951, we have to show the world and persuade Russia and such people as Mr. Ehrenburg that we are ready to fight in 1950 or 1951. Yet it is clear, and I think we all admit it, that until the Korea affair all our arrangements for combined defence in the Atlantic and our arrangements for building up defences here were based not on readiness today but on readiness in 1953 or 1954. Now we are brought right up against a change of policy. Are we going to accept that change? If we are to base the time of readiness of our forces upon the actual conditions of today, we must get our forces prepared for today.
It seems to me that the United States have accepted that challenge in President Truman's proposal. It has been accepted in so far as their own defences are concerned—ten billion dollars on extra defence and five billion dollars extra for military assistance for us. They have faced up to the challenge of the present world conditions. I am not quarrelling about figures, nor am I arguing whether we can rival the actual figures of expenditure the Government of the United States propose. Of course we cannot. I am arguing on the principle of whether this £100 million proposal and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, an extract from which I shall shortly quote, does not show that we differ from the United States, in that we do not accept that change of policy.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he is genuinely trying to bring our defences up to preparedness today. Are we trying to get strong today with

speed? It would appear from the words the right hon. Gentleman used that we are not. In the course of his speech, he said:
The measures we are now taking mainly in these fields will cost an additional £100 million, but this is no more than a small part of the cost which would be involved fully to equip our Forces to fight. Much larger sums would be required in order to put our Forces in a condition of readiness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 481.]
These words alarm me very much indeed.
I ask the House to bear with me while I bring to its attention one or two things that are still short of preparedness, things which will not be affected as much as they should be by the expenditure of this £100 million. Before I do that, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman one more question. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech and from the whole attitude of the Government in this matter that they are prepared later to bring their plans up to date to increase our preparedness if certain eventualities take place. The question I want to ask is this: "What is it that has to happen before they decide to increase the preparedness of our forces?" Do the Government accept, as I and, I think, all of us on this side accept, that the primary object of our defences today is to prevent aggression—to prevent another war?
If that is our object, then surely, for goodness sake, we want to get ready before the next Korea takes place and the next act of aggression is threatened. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to realise that, in asking for defensive preparedness, I am not seeking complete mobilisation of everyone or the throwing out of balance of the whole economy of the nation. But if we accept the change of policy, which I think we are forced to accept, we have to strike a new balance between the military requirements, on the one hand, and the financial, social and economic requirements, on the other.
I accept the need for that balance, but I ask the Government whether they are trying to strike a new balance, and what that balance is. We have been reminded more than once in the course of the Debate that more than half our strength lies in the combined defences that we make with the Americans, the Commonwealth and with Western Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and


Leamington (Mr. Eden) referred yesterday to an overall strategic concept, and the Prime Minister told us that the concept was fixed for the Atlantic area, but he did not tell us—he seemed deliberately not to tell us—that a similar concept existed for the world.
Surely, we know that the fight against Communism is a world fight; surely the time has come when, either through the extension of the Atlantic Pact, the Atlantic Council or through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as in war-time, or through some other machinery, an overall world strategic concept should be fixed. Once that has been done we can get all the countries together, and there will be no necessity for these differences of opinion, like there appear to be today, over what should be spent, how soon land forces get to Korea, and whether or not we should defend Formosa. These things arise from the fact that we have no agreement about our overall world strategic concept. I am quite certain that we can only get that agreement quickly by having conversations on the highest level. That is why I support the proposal that has been made more than once, that the time has come for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence to go to Washington and see the heads of the American Government to fix up this matter. Until it is settled, nothing can be settled below.
So much for world defence. Now a word about Western European defence. From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is clear that things are far from right. I think I am right in saying that we have not at the moment more than half the requisite number of divisions available in Europe to fulfil the plans upon which the people at Fontainebleau are working. That is a terrible thing; that plans are being made and we are not able to provide the forces up to that basis. That is, perhaps, more alarming than making plans which seem inadequate but for which, at least, we have the tools and divisions.
I saw a report in the Press a little time ago that if the plans of Fontainebleau for European defence were put into operation 24 billion dollars more would have to be found. That is symptomatic of how far the plans are out of touch with reality. It is about time that something was done. We want radar screens and

more aeroplanes, but if we are to stop Russia, we have to do it with land forces. If we are to persuade Russia that it is not worth attacking, and, above all, that they cannot get to the Channel ports, we have to have the divisions there backed with air forces to hold them up until the main forces of the Americans, the French and ourselves can reach the area.
We want to increase the number of divisions we have there, and we want to see that the divisions we have are fully up to strength, organised on an operational basis and not on a training basis. What does the organisation of a division on a training basis mean? I think I am right in saying that its operational strength is only two-thirds of what it ought to be; in fact, it is provided with only two-thirds of its major equipment. When we talk, as we often do, of the importance of training, surely we ought to realise that, both in Germany and at home, we must prefer the claims of operational needs to those of training needs in our active forces.
Why is it that we have so few operational divisions in Germany and in this country? It is largely—almost entirely—because of the shortage of Regulars. That has been referred to over and over again. It has been questioned from the other side of the House whether it is pay or something else that is the cause of this lack of Regulars. I would say to the Government that there are many other things wrong, but if all those other things are put right and they do not put pay right, they will still not get the Regulars. When we were considering this in the Estimates Committee a little time ago, and the problem of getting Regular technicians, that was the advice given us by representatives from each of the Service Departments, and I believe it to be correct advice.
I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Air has taken some steps about the problem of the shortage of technicians in the Royal Air Force. I am glad to know that something is being done by the War Office. But I would beseech them to remember that an Army and an Air Force is not built entirely upon technicians. They are vital, but the importance of the skilled infantry man, the skilled man in the tank, and, I imagine, the skilled air crew is just as great. Something must be done, even if it is not


exactly the same thing, to encourage more of them to volunteer. The problem of strength is not only the problem of manpower. It is also a problem of equipment. It has been said that the Centurion tank is in "full production." What a nice sound that phrase has, but what on earth does it mean? Full production for what, and on what basis? On the basis of one Armoured Division and a few Armoured Brigades? Or on the basis of what we require for real strength in peace-time; of what we require to persuade Russia and her satellites that we are really prepared?
I would suggest that the Centurion tank is not in full production for that purpose, but I know that other important weapons of the Army are certainly not in full production. If we are dealing with tanks, as my right hon. Friend advised us we should and that we should think about them carefully, we have to meet the problem of the importance of the large self-propelled anti-tank gun. We are not properly equipped with them in the Army today and they are very important in mobile warfare. There are other antitank weapons which require our attention from the production angle.
I hope we realise that it is no good having plans on the drawing board and excellent arrangements for the production of equipment a few months after a crisis. If we are endeavouring to get the best Air Force and the best Army and the best Navy we must give the people on whom we rely for fighting in the early days, the best equipment, so that we may keep up their morale and so that we do not lose them unnecessarily in the early stages. I do not wish to draw critical lessons from Korea, but it seems to me that we and our great Ally have learned once again that even for resistance to acts of aggression, such as that, a lack of really up-to-date equipment on the spot at the right time costs dearly.
I have tried to bring home to the Government a few of my anxieties. We have had many other points put forward in this Debate such as the importance of proper machinery to call up Reservists if that becomes necessary. That is a thing which costs us little. It costs nothing really in money. It costs a lot of brain power and brain fag but it ought to be done. We have had references to

the importance of stockpiling programmes. I believe that to be of enormous importance. One has only to look at the Digest of Statistics, and compare the stocks of many important raw materials with what they were in 1939 where they are given, and in 1945, when they are always given, to feel anxious.
I am bound to tell the House that I feel really alarmed; not only because of the strength of Russia which was put forward in that great analysis made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend, but also because the Government appear not to have made up their minds—in spite of the challenge in Korea, in spite of the actions of their American allies—to change their policy and to give up hoping things will be all right, hoping that it will be all right if we are just prepared in 1953 or 1954, and, instead, to make a real effort to achieve preparedness today. I ask the Government to re-think on those lines. If, when they have re-thought, they come to this House and say they must demand more from the country, I am quite certain that I and my hon. and right hon. Friends will be the first to support them.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Paget: When I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I was pleased that this Debate was in public. It was a most masterly exposition of the dangers with which we are faced, and I feel that it is most important that the country should hear it. Indeed, he showed once again that he is so much bigger when he speaks as a great Englishman than when he speaks as a party politician.
There was only one passage in his speech in which he went out to score a party political point, and I believe that was a completely false point. It was on the question of the sale of jet aeroplane engines to Egypt and the Argentine. If he were here I would ask him a question or two about that. Does he think that in peace-time it should be our policy to say to the engineering industry that production of jet aeroplanes, or any form of arms, should have an absolute priority, that they should get ahead with that and forget about civilian production? Of course he does not say that, nor does anybody else in peace-time.
In peace-time we have to apportion our Service requirements and our civilian


requirements. We do that by our Service Estimates. We say that a certain proportion of our production shall be devoted to the Forces, and that a certain part shall be left to our general economy. Hon. Members opposite have not criticised the Estimates by saying that they were not large enough. Broadly speaking, there has been consent across the House as to the general size of those Estimates. Within the Air Force Estimates a certain amount is devoted to equipment and a certain amount for other purposes.
Again, there has been no substantial criticism as to the proportions within the Estimates. It is not for one moment suggested that the Air Force has not obtained every jet engine for which they estimated. The fact that other jet engines were made for which they did not estimate, and which went abroad, has not made the slightest difference to the amount of jet engines which we decided that the Air Force should have. The only effect it has had has been beneficial, that our capacity to produce jet engines is larger than if those engines had not been produced.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that where vital Defence Forces are concerned, it is unwise to sell jet aircraft to other people unless we are quite certain that we ourselves have enough?

Mr. Paget: The decision as to how many jet aircraft we are to have is taken in peace-time by our Estimates. The amount asked for is the amount of jet engines which will be made. The jet engines not asked for, will not be made unless for some other purpose. That is the whole question of jet engines.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for giving way. It is important that this point about jet engines should be cleared up. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the auxiliary squadrons are not yet fully equipped with jet engines and if jet engines had not gone to foreign Powers, we should have them in the Metropolitan Air Force today.

Mr. Paget: No, I dispute that. It is entirely untrue. True, they are not equipped with jet engines, but then we

never estimated that we would devote that additional proportion of our economy to the Air Force. The equipment of the Air Force—I am certain that the Minister can confirm this statement—has kept pace engines had not gone to foreign Powers, with what we estimated for it and the expenditure we decided to devote to it. The contracts placed by the Air Ministry have been performed. I have no doubt that the Minister for Air will deal with that point in due course. I want to get' on with the very much more important and broader issue with which I want to deal.
Throughout these five years there has been broad agreement between the two Front Benches on Defence policy. Of course, there has been criticism as to detail, but on the general question as to the shape, size, cost and disposition of our Forces there has been broad agreement. Criticism—and there has been criticism—has come from the back benches of both sides, certainly, in the last Parliament, mainly from this side. That being the position, I feel that it is important that we should realise that the policy to which both parties were largely committed has failed.
Let us look at the position. We have forces in Germany. If the Russians advanced there, the best we could hope for is that we could evacuate those forces successfully. We have forces in the Middle East. If the Russians attacked there, we could do about as much for Greece as we did last time. We can support neither Turkey nor Persia. We have forces in Malaya, the Guards, doing what is essentially a police job, because we have not any other forces to send. We have forces in Hong Kong. Having seen the quality of the Communists in Korea I think we all hope very much that those forces will not be attacked.
That is the very perilous position in which we find ourselves today. We start off the next war, if it comes, in the position in which we were after Dunkirk but with only about half the air force. Because we have tried to be everywhere we are effective nowhere. Because we have designed our Forces for no particular purpose they are not fitted for any particular purpose. It is gravely important that this House should realise the mistakes in this policy. Unless those


mistakes are realised they will not be corrected.
Now we are sending forces to Korea. Politically that may be a highly desirable gesture, but strategically it is crazy. In this war of the Russian circumference, to weaken the very large sector which is in our charge and which is already insufficiently held, by taking units up to an extreme corner is strategically crazy. It may be right. There are times when political considerations outweigh strategical ones, but it is not strategy.
In parenthesis I would like to say, because it has not been said before, that I think Americans have put up an extremely fine show in Korea. We have not realised their difficulties. They have had to improvise out of occupation troops, fighting formations which did not exist before the war started, and to put up an effective resistance to an organised army. That they have done so, and held the position—they look like holding a bridgehead—is a very fine military performance. We have to realise this lesson from Korea, that there are difficulties when you have troops but have not fighting formations. The extent to which the Americans have overcome those difficulties is surprising.
Whatever may be the position in Korea, in Europe I do not believe we can give political gestures priority over strategic realities. What are these strategic realities in Europe? The Brussels Pact does not exist except on paper. It does not exist this year, and we all know that it will not exist next year either. Europe is defended by nothing except the atom bomb pile in America. We have heard what Mr. Ehrenburg, who speaks with a great deal of force for Russia, has been saying. It is profoundly important that he should be undeceived. We must convince the Russians that the Democracies have the nerve to use the atomic bomb. Our safety depends upon that. We can point the Russians to our British historical record. In spite of the nonsense that was talked at the war criminal trials, no people on earth have been so absolutely ruthless as the British when their ultimate interests were concerned. Let the Russians know that, and remember.
I believe that I speak for the vast majority of the people of this country

when I say with deep seriousness that we would prefer to die rather than to submit to a Russian conqueror. We would prefer to have every one of our cities destroyed and go and live in the ditches rather than submit. We will go on fighting to the end and, as always, we shall win. The Russians have to be convinced of that, because the peace of the world depends upon their being convinced of it. I do not believe that if Stalin really believes in the quality of our resolution he will choose to join the company of those dictators and emperors who have been rash enough to try conclusions with this famous island.
We have to make our position clear. We shall not make our position clear to the Russians, who are realists, unless we make our military dispositions conform to our resolution and to the reality of the situation. It is not realist to have our fighting military formations—few enough, in all conscience—in a place where, as we know perfectly well, and as the Russians know perfectly well, they cannot fight. That is, in Germany. To have our fighting formations placed in Germany is an indication to the Russians that we are not serious, because they know that in the German positions they cannot fight. We should, of course, have occupation troops there, symbolic troops. We should send to the Russians a map with a line on it, and we should say: "Here is the map, and here is the frontier. If you or your satellites invade across that line, then within 24 hours atomic bombs will begin to come down on your cities. Realise that there is nothing in front of you, but realise also the price which you will pay."
Our troops should be disposed where they have a chance of fighting, and that is in this island, for island defence, and in the Middle East, where we want an effective professional Army to maintain the area from which the Anglo-American counter-offensive would eventually have to develop in the event of war. By doing that, we show the Russians we are serious and we may avoid war.
In this island we must get on with our island defences because in Europe a siege fight is all we can do. We must give a far higher priority to "ack-ack" and fighter aircraft. As the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) said, we must build up our stocks for a siege, and, above all, we must dig in our


essential industries, dig in our people and build up our coast defences and show the Russians that we mean to fight in the circumstances in which fighting is possible.
We must build up a professional Army which should in the initial phases be in Britain and the Middle East but we should say to the other Powers upon the Continent that although we maintain that professional Army in the Middle East and in Britain where in the existing circumstances it can fight, as soon as it has done its job and there is a real possibility of defence in Europe, our army will be brought in its entirety to Europe and be added to the army of Western Union just as soon as that army exists as a reality. Meanwhile our forces must not be committed to a paper scheme in positions in which they could not fight.
We have had many speeches about recruiting, including one by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), who said that the trouble was insufficient pay for the Forces. That is nonsense. Nobody has at any time gone in for a military career because he thought that he could make more money in the Army than in civilian life—or very few have done so, at any rate. People go into the Army for a different reason. They do so because they like a military life, and the military life which they like is the life of the regiment. They go into a regiment, they have their comrades there, they have a sense of home in the regiment, they have an esprit de corps and a love for that organisation and they feel that they have a niche and a function in life. It is the way of life that attracts the recruit.
When we proceed to insert into that regiment a lot of browned-off National Service men whose only interest is to see how soon they can get out, we destroy that whole spirit, and while we have National Service men mixed up in our Regular formations we shall never get recruitment. That was the experience of France and Germany, and it has been the experience wherever it has been tried. If we mingle our National Service men with our Regulars we can never recruit for our Regular Forces. We have no difficulty in recruiting for the Guards because the "rot" has not been inserted. They are professional. Until we unscramble National Service men from the Regular

Forces we shall not get recruits for the Regular Forces.
The all-important thing is, first, that we form a professional Army for here and the Middle East and eventually for Europe, and that it should consist only of full-time professionals and of practically the whole of our full-time professionals. In the second place, for home defence we should build another Army consisting entirely of National Service men. Its function would be a relatively static one, and it could be officered by people who have retired from the Regular Army—they are not very old nowadays—and by senior N.C.O.s from the Regular Army, who are also not very old either. By doing that we offer a far longer military career to Regular soldiers because they can become the company officers and battalion officers of the Home Defence Army, which is where the National Service men ought to be concentrated.
Finally, we want a Colonial Defence Army because we cannot have our professional Army dispersed over the Empire on fire brigade duties. We should raise Colonial troops for the gendarmerie jobs in the Colonies. We also want colonial fire brigade groups in, perhaps, brigade groups. I have previously suggested that a Foreign Legion should be raised for this purpose, and I still think that that is a good idea. In any event, and apart from that, I think it would be legitimate for us to suggest to our Dominions that that is a job which they ought to take on and that the striking Forces to deal with any conflagration throughout our Colonial Empire ought to be Imperial troops.
I was a little alarmed when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth) said that we wanted a crusading spirit and the sense of a religious war. For heaven's sake, do not let us have anything of that sort. Religious wars, the crusading spirit—that is the road to insanity which we want to avoid. We must make it perfectly clear that we have a policy, a limited policy, a policy which is tolerable to the other half of the world, and that to maintain that policy we are prepared to fight to any extent, but, apart from that, as long as our security is maintained, we will come to an agreement at any point. We will


fight for policy but not for an ideology or a crusade. This is a matter which we should keep with sanity in our minds.

Brigadier Smyth: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman could have listened to my speech because the whole tenor of what I said was that we must not have another war at all. I said nothing about a religious war. I said that we must have the crusading spirit to prevent another war from ever happening.

Mr. Paget: I am extremely glad to hear that and I immediately accept it from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Of course, all of us have as our first anxiety the avoidance of another war.

6.9 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I preferred the practical realism of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the discursive eloquence of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I should, however, like to take up two things mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton in what I thought was otherwise an excellent speech. First, he said that we had not differed in matters of Defence policy. Taking it generally, that may be correct, but if he will read the Estimates Debates over the last few years he will see that the points which have been put forward from all sides of the House today are the points which the Opposition have been putting to the Government over the last five years.
The other point on which I disagreed with the hon. and learned Member was his statement that it is not vitally important to increase the pay of the Services. I agree, if he says that it is not the vital point which will bring more people into our Regular Services, but at the moment the pay is a deterrent and that is the point which right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench will have to address themselves to in the near future when they come to the question of the disbursement of the £100 million of which we have heard.

Mr. Paget: I would not disagree with that. My point was that increased pay is given a disproportionate value.

Commander Maitland: I am glad we can agree on that point. In one part of

speech the hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised the necessity for showing resolution, for showing Russia that we are determined to resist aggression, that we would rather see our cities in ashes than submit to their way of life. I believe that to be true, and I believe it is essential that it should be said.
Of the three short points I shall try to make to the Government, I want that to be the first. I want people to speak about the possibility of war, particularly hon. Members opposite, in a different way from that of the past. Hitherto, too many hon. Members have indicated that they thought even to admit the possibility of war was to betray the cause of peace. Even in this Debate, the Minister of Defence was interrupted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) who asked, "Why make a war speech?" If we honestly believe in peace, if we honestly hate war, surely we can admit the possibility of war without any shame to us or to those for whom we speak? Therefore, my first point is a psychological one, but not less important for that, that we have to face these facts honestly and that we have to make our speeches in the country and in this House accordingly.
The second of my two points follows from what I have just been saying. The Minister of Labour is the Minister of National Service as well and should be called by that title, particularly in these difficult days. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would make known to the people of this country his mobilisation plans, and the Minister said that it would not be in the public interest to do so. From all sides of the House we have heard hon. Members telling us to take the people into our confidence. I believe that the Minister of National Service and Labour must take the people into his confidence in this first great war plan—because that is what mobilisation is.
Mobilisation is one of the great battles fought at the beginning of a war, but it need not necessarily be lost. Just because we are in the habit of winning the last battle in a war, it is not absolutely necessary to lose as many of the first ones as we can. We shall probably lose a good many, but there are certain problems we can tackle better if we think ahead. Mobilisation is the first immediate difficult problem we have to face, but it does


not cost money to make the necessary plans.
For several years now we on these benches have been pressing almost in detail for the proposals that were mentioned by the Minister of Defence in his speech. Why have they not been brought forward before? We must realise that we have to start somewhere. It is not easy to spend £100 million on Defence. We must realise that key men in industry will be key men in Defence. It is no good pretending that by careful organisation we can produce a plan whereby all the key men in industry will be reserved. It cannot be done because many of those men are the key men in our Fighting Services. The Government must tell industry and the trade unions now exactly what they mean to do, and then the trade unions and the employers can have others trained ready to take their places when the key men go. That means sacrifice. But it is a sacrifice we all have to face and we can face it.
With regard to mobilisation, anyone who listened to the interesting and important Debate this week on Civil Defence must have realised that failure to understand the mobilisation plans—which of the Z reserve are to be called up, and who are the people reserved in key industries—will completely defeat recruitment for the Civil Defence Service. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the Minister of National Service and Labour should take the people into his confidence and tell them what he is going to do.
My last point concerns sabotage—a word I do not like. I much prefer "treason" or "treachery." We have to face the fact that in this lukewarm war—perhaps getting hotter, though we hope getting colder—that is one of our great new problems. There will be more and more treachery and treason, such as we had at Portsmouth the other day. It is absolutely necessary and, incidentally, fairer to the saboteurs, to make perfectly clear to them that sabotage of any kind is, in effect, murder. Sometimes it is direct murder, such as we had at Portsmouth. But it is equally murder when it appears in the guise of doing something which does not kill people directly, because all sabotage is aimed at prolonging an existing war or weakening us in the event of war. That means that many hundreds of innocent men, our

sons, who will go and fight will be killed. That is why I beg the Government to make it clear, without further delay, and far more strongly that was done at Question Time today or in any statement made recently, that treason and treachery will not be tolerated in this country and that the punishment is death.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I agree entirely with one point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), that when we are talking about weapons of war we must not forget the people who have to use them. We must not forget what our people are thinking, and that is why I am glad that this is not a secret Session. While I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, which shows that we are preparing for a policy of full preparedness, I hope this House will not forget that his statement has come as a severe shock to many honest, patriotic people in this country. There are those who were hoping that as a result of the policy of the Government they would see some realisation of their ideals; there are the hard-working women who have pinned their hopes on the careers of their sons; and, of course, there is the natural pacifism of a civilised country.
We must not ignore the strength of this feeling, and for this reason we must make it quite clear that the choice that we in this country are making is not the old moth-eaten one between guns and butter, but between liberty and butter. "Liberty" is a very much shop-soiled word, but it means something. Perhaps only those of us who have had direct personal experience of life in a country from which political liberty has disappeared realise fully its real value. We must get over to the people of this country, who are deeply concerned by the present situation and by the risks to the attainment of their hopes for the future, that the struggle that we are facing is one which any honest man can face with a clear conscience. There are plenty of people who are trying to distort that view.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that no sacrifices are too great for the preservation of liberty. The word "sacrifice," however, like the word "liberty," has been somewhat tarnished.


We must not forget that the sacrifices we are about to be asked to make will be real sacrifices, and we must be prepared to face them, but, at the same time, do not let us be stupefied by this thought.
Let us look round in our own country and among our neighbours to see what forces exist which may mitigate the sacrifices if we use our intelligence correctly. The first of these, of course, is the point which was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Greater productivity will go some of the way to solving our problems. Secondly, let us look abroad to see where there are unused resources which we may use. If we do that, I think we will see in Western Germany certain resources which we may be able to turn to our own use.
I should like to discuss the addition to our economic and, possibly, military potential which we can get from that country. Alone among the countries of Western Europe, Germany at present has considerable unused industrial capacity; it has an unused capacity of six million tons of steel, and an unused capacity of manpower. The tragedy of unemployment in Germany means that there are unused resources of human beings in that country that we could turn to our use.
Further, in the purely economic field there are financial resources which are running to waste. By that I refer to the deficit in foreign trade now being financed by the Americans and by ourselves. I maintain that because, as a result of rearmament in this country, we will run short of certain consumer goods—if we have more of one thing, we must have less of another—we should see whether we can bring this unused capacity in Western Germany into our own economic sphere and replace our lost capacity in this country by the unused capacity in Western Germany.
The problem is that in Western Germany there is a shortage of working capacity. The Germans cannot get their industrial machine into production because they have not their own money in Deutschmarks to do so; and the main European problem is that the Deutschmark is linked to the dollar. As a result, no country can trade with Germany and run a deficit without having to pay in hard currency. Therefore, the capacity of Western Germany is not fully used. I

suggest that, together with the other occupying Powers and the German Government itself, our Government should see what can be done to gear the unused capacity of Germany to our own economy.
Secondly, let us see what part Germany might be able to play, not in our defence, but possibly in her own defence. I fully appreciate the delicacy of this subject, and I do not want to underline the dilemma which everyone in this House appreciates, but we cannot put this problem off for ever. A Press campaign is starting in this country, and I think that most hon. Members have received a copy of a paper advocating German rearmament. What is even more important, we cannot overlook the state of mind which exists in Germany. There is near-hysteria. The simple incident, of which most of us in this House know, of the complete evacuation of a frontier village in the Western zone of Germany because a single Russian official visited it, is an illustration of this fear, which is due to the fact that the Germans feel themselves impotent in the face of a great danger. We have to do something to steady their morale.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence that we cannot at the moment consider the remilitarisation of Germany proper. All through this Debate we have heard that we have not sufficient arms for our own Forces. We simply cannot waste those arms on re-equipping an army which would consist of conscripts from the ground up; we could not even consider this, because we have no overspill which we can afford to waste. There is, however, one thing which we can do, and that is to make Western Germany responsible for its own internal security.
Under the Weimar Republic there was an institution known as the "Green Police," whose purpose was the simple one of internal security and the prevention of riots and sabotage. This force lived in barracks, was under military discipline, and was armed with platoon weapons. I suggest that something like like this should be permitted to Germany now. I understand that conversations are going on about the setting up of a Federal German police force, and I believe that the present intention is that it should be limited to 5,000 men. We have


swallowed this particular gnat. We are thinking about this problem along agreed lines with the occupying Powers of Western Germany, and we should not be afraid to go a little further and give the Federal German Republic the right to recruit a Federal police force which would guarantee its own internal security. That would give the Germans a sense of being able to do something for themselves in the face of a pressing danger, and provide us with a force which would do the job, which we should have to do ourselves in case of war, of preventing sabotage and riots.
I make those two concrete suggestions for bringing the capacity of Germany in industry and manpower into the service of the West. Let us use the unused German industrial capacity to eke out our own economy which will suffer as a result of the rearmament programme and let us set up a central Federal German police force which will, in effect, do work which we would otherwise have to do with our own Regular Forces.

6.29 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): Despite our political differences, which, I suspect, will continue for some time to come, the Debate, both yesterday and this afternoon, has been conducted with remarkable good temper. It is true that for a few brief moments today some statements were made on either side of a somewhat provocative character, but, after all, in an important Debate of this kind that is not unexpected.
I will admit that in the past, even the recent past, some observations have fallen from the lips of hon. Members opposite and there have been comments in the newspapers of a somewhat offensive character, for example, the allegation that the Service Ministers—including myself—are, if not thoroughly incompetent, at any rate hardly fit to occupy their responsible positions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am confirmed in my opinion that that view is held by some hon. Members opposite. It is common form, it has been common form ever since I became a Member of this House—and I am within the recollection of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—always to attack Ministers, whoever they are, in whatever Government, on the ground of their incompetency—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] As I am reminded by an hon. Member on

the Government benches, I have ventured,—infrequently—to indulge in these tactics myself.
I propose, for the purpose of winding up this Debate, to put all dialectic into cold storage. Our primary concern, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister included, and all of us, is to present to the House, to the country and, for that matter, to the world at large, a true appreciation of the position in which we find ourselves. It would be most foolish, most fatal, most disastrous if we failed to understand what it is that we are anxious about. Yesterday, in the course of the Debate, the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House disclosed their anxiety about the international situation. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition emphasised the gravity of the situation. What we are concerned about is not only an appreciation of the situation, but an appreciation of the problem that is thrown up, a problem that calls for solution as speedily as possible. It is possible to state the problem; that comes easily and glibly, but no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself how much more difficult it is to find a solution.
In the Debate many allegations have been made about the sins of omission and commission for which the Government are responsible. Among the allegations is one with which we are all now familiar, namely, that it was a fatal blunder some time ago to dispose of jet aero-engines to Soviet Russia. There was a time, as I indicated in my speech yesterday, when we were on good terms with Soviet Russia. It may have been regarded as the honeymoon period. There was a time, certainly during the war, when our relations were excellent and the Leader of the Opposition, with that eloquence for which he is unmatched, frequently applauded the virtues of the people of Soviet Russia and their gallant fighters. Indeed, that continued for some time after the war, as we must remind ourselves, when Russia was a full member of the United Nations and subscribed wholeheartedly, as it appeared, to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
In those circumstances, and there being no war imminent—I but state the facts—there appeared to be no reason why we should decline to provide Soviet Russia with the aero engines of which they were apparently in need. Moreover, as the


Leader of the Opposition has said, he is well aware of the fact—much more so than many hon. Members behind him—the Russians were able to avail themselves of the technical capacity of many German technicians, particularly in the field of aeronautical design. If we had not provided the Russians with those engines, can it be doubted that they would have been able to obtain all the information they required from sources under their control?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: rose—

Mr. Shinwell: Whether my view is acceptable or not—

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: It is preposterous.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that hon. Members opposite decline to accept my opinion about the matter. I understand exactly where they are; I remain where I was; and there I am afraid the matter must rest, except to say this: Is there anyone in his senses in this House who imagines that, if we had declined to provide Russia with these aero engines, Russia would not have been able to build up the armed strength to which the Leader of the Opposition and myself have referred in this Debate? It is inconceivable. The sources of information and vast resources were available to Soviet Russia.
I do not complain of the questions which have been addressed to the Government. It is quite proper that these questions should be asked. I used to ask questions myself and, if I may say so, frequently I did not get a satisfactory answer; and never more so than when I was asking the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I understood precisely and perfectly why he failed to satisfy me—[HON. MEMBERS: "We know."] Hon. Members do not know, some of them were not even here to know at the time. There are circumstances, be it noted, when it may be desirable to ask questions, although, even then, some discretion is necessary. But there are certainly circumstances in which it is most inadvisable to answer the questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, if he will forgive my saying so—I know he has a forgiving nature—has almost worked himself up into a passion about a Secret

Session. I sometimes conceive the notion that—

Major Beamish: Less padding.

Mr. Shinwell: If hon. Members do not wish to hear what I have to say there is nothing to prevent them leaving the House. Let it be clearly understood that I shall state my case in my own fashion.

Major Beamish: When?

Mr. Shinwell: So far I have said nothing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Can anything more cheap than those jeers be imagined?
I have said nothing provocative about the right hon. Gentleman, but I must now make it clear that when he asks for a Secret Session he knows very well, no one better, that we could have a series of Secret Sessions and yet not make available the information for which he asks. Indeed, he disclosed to the House this afternoon a good deal of information, much of which I imparted to the House yesterday. Even in a Secret Session he could not have said much more, and even in a Secret Session he would not have expected me to answer precisely and in detail the questions which he asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The right hon. Gentleman knows very well. Over and over again in the course of his speech he said he assumed that the details could not be given. If hon. Members do not take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, it is their misfortune.
Let me also point out that last October the right hon. Gentleman, at his request,—and it was quite a proper request coming from the Leader of the Opposition—was received by members of the Government when the question of our military preparations was under review. We made available to the right hon. Gentleman all the information for which he asked. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman may remind himself—it is no secret that he met us; it was announced in the Press—that he promised the Prime Minister that he would send him a memorandum embodying his constructive views on what ought to be done. We are still waiting for that memorandum. We have never placed any obstacle in the way of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his leading colleagues being furnished with information, and should


the right hon. Gentleman wish to present those constructive views to the Prime Minister and members of the Government we shall be only too pleased to have them. They will receive the utmost consideration, as, indeed, they should, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, not only because he is the Leader of the Opposition, but because of the high place he occupies in this country.
We have no wish to withhold information from the Leader of the Opposition, but it is quite a different matter to furnish, either in public or in a Secret Session, information beyond what we have furnished. We all know that, although there is no record of our deliberations in a Secret Session, the atmosphere and odds and ends of what occurs are often heard of outside. We are taking no chances. [Laughter.] There may be a little levity in certain quarters about it, but that will not induce us to revise our opinion. Further, I venture the opinion that, if the right hon. Gentleman were in my place as Minister of Defence, he would do precisely what I am doing. He was Minister of Defence during the war. He has never been Minister of Defence in peace-time. If he were Minister of Defence, or were occupying an even more important position, he would do precisely what I have done. He would, in spite of all demands, furnish to the House the information which he thought it desirable to provide. That is precisely what I am doing.
Just to show how accommodating we are I will reply at once to one question which the right hon. Gentleman asked, which was: Have we one fully armoured division in the British Army of the Rhine? My answer is, "Yes, with a proper proportion of armour." I have answered the question.
I come to the crux of this problem. The right hon. Gentleman recognises it; he knows all about it. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) also put a question to me about it. The assumption underlying some of the speeches, and to some extent the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, was that we were going to fight alone. He asked what was our strength in land Forces, in aircraft; were we prepared—

Mr. Churchill: I was dealing solely with the Western European Forces, and M. Reynaud's figures which I quoted did not

in any way refer only to the British; they referred to all the Western Union Forces.

Mr. Shinwell: I took note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about M. Reynaud's opinion of the strength of the Forces in the West.

Mr. Churchill: Was he more or less right?

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question. I took note of what he said. That is as far as I am prepared to go.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman took note of what was said by whom?

Mr. Shinwell: What the right hon. Gentleman reported that M. Reynaud had said. I took note of that, and beyond that I am not going.
My point remains as sound as it was originally, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman's assumption in questions he asked was that we, with perhaps certain countries of the West, were going to fight alone. What about the North Atlantic Treaty organisation?

Mr. Churchill: That is quite inaccurate. I was thinking about the five Powers who are joined together in Western Union plus the Americans, who have Forces there. It was those 12 divisions to which M. Reynaud referred. That is the only matter with which I have dealt. I never contemplated that we should fight alone on the Continent of Europe, nor did anyone in his senses.

Mr. Shinwell: Now I understand exactly. We are not expected to fight alone. As we have said over and over again it is not, in these circumstances, exclusively a question of what we, or France, or Belgium, or Holland can put into the pool; it is a question of what the whole of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers, with any assistance that can be rendered by other countries, can contribute to the Defence organisation not only in the West but elsewhere. We have to look further than the West. The West is vital, but we have to look all around. We must think of the Middle East and the Far East. There are other parts of the world, too, where the danger of infiltration is very serious indeed. Therefore, we are building up on the basis of a plan provided by the North


Atlantic Treaty organisation and in association with the Brussels Treaty Powers not only ground Forces but air Forces and, in particular, material.
I have been asked whether these Forces are to be built up speedily or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford himself said that he did not expect that a major war was imminent. Of course, we cannot tell. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that I am not prepared to take any chances, but to proceed on the assumption—[Laughter.] I see no reason for levity in this particular matter—that anything could happen, and that trouble could break out anywhere, even trouble of a major character. It is possible that a succession of so-called minor incidents might lead to a major conflict. The question is: How soon can we be prepared? All I can say to the House is that as far as the West is concerned we know exactly what we require. It is very important to know what we need at the beginning.

Mr. Churchill: Certainly, it is most important, but can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us a little by saying that he and the other Western Powers have got a quarter of what is required?

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me from the argument that I am adducing, but I am not going to allow him to do so, whatever his hon. Friends behind him may think.
I repeat, the first essential is to know what is required. That is precisely the position the right hon. Gentleman was in in the early stages of the last war. He had to find out what was required, and, obviously, the stuff was not there when he arrived—nobody knows it better than he does—in spite of the war expenditure previous Governments had asked for. That is the first consideration—what we require. We know what is essential, but it is very much more difficult, once we know our requirements, to proceed to approach the target. I am bound to tell the House what I indicated yesterday. I am sorry to say this to the House; I wish it were otherwise. Our present position falls far short of our requirements.

Brigadier Clarke: Whose fault is it?

Mr. Shinwell: Of all the stupid questions I have heard in this Debate that is the worst. If any provocation is given for a rejoinder, then we have it in that statement, particularly as it comes from someone who has just left the Army and should know what is the actual position. I am very anxious not to be unduly provocative, but when an Army officer indulges in a stupid observation of that kind I wonder why we kept him in the Army so long. We are asked whose fault it is, and I repeat that nobody, three years ago, expected that we should have to prepare for a major conflict.

Brigadier Clarke: Why not?

Mr. Shinwell: Why not? It is obvious that it is impossible to speak to hon. Members like that. I have been asked whether we are preparing plans for strategic needs to cover not only the West and North Atlantic but the world. The world is a very large place. It may be there are some parts of it with which we need not concern ourselves at this moment. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members on the back benches opposite will try to restrain themselves.

Mr. Gerald Williams: It is very difficult.

Mr. Shinwell: This may not be agreeable to the hon. Gentleman, but, nevertheless, he has got to put up with it. I am expected to reply and that is what I am doing. On the subject of wider strategic considerations, I can assure hon. Members that the North Atlantic Chiefs of Staff organisation and its Standing Group is not only in existence, but is working very well indeed. They are responsible for the major preparation of the plan upon which we hope to build up our Forces on the ground, in the air, and on the sea, as well as provide the materials that are required. We applaud the statement made by President Truman, because it indicates that the United States of America are ready, as indeed they have been for some time, to assist in the provision of the necessary equipment.
I have been asked whether we are receiving value for our money in the Defence Services of this country. I notice that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman referred to an expenditure of £5,000 million since the end of the war, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in a


speech he made about two months ago, referred to the sum of £4,000 million. I presume what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was expenditure up to the end of this financial year which, in fact, will amount to £4,798 million. We have to consider what we get for this money and I am going to tell the House. The assumption is that we waste it or, at any rate, part of it. That is far from being the case. Let us take the case of the Army, the estimate for which is £299 million this year. Of this we spend in pay £84,630,000. It is not suggested that we should not pay this amount. Indeed, hon. Members have asked us for increased pay. That is a question upon which there can be no question of waste. [Interruption.] I am not quite sure what hon. Members opposite mean. Do they want us to increase the pay or do they not?

Mr. Kirkwood: They do not know what they want.

Mr. Shinwell: It is obvious that some of them do not know where they are. Then there is the pay of the Reserve Forces, the T.A. and the Auxiliary Forces, and grants for administration, amounting to over £7 million. There is the pay of civilians. A large number of civilians are employed in establishments associated with the Army, and this accounts for £46 million. Movement costs £21 million, which is a vast increase on the pre-war position and largely due to the fact that we have to move men about from place to place, particularly in view of our commitments. Then we have got supplies of food and ration allowances, which amount to £21 million. Do hon. Members expect us to reduce that amount? Recently, we have increased the ration scales. This is an expenditure which is well worth while. Then there is production and research, £57 million.

Mr. Churchill: The point which has been concerning us is whether there is anything to show for this in the form of tactical units.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question, and perhaps the House will bear with me when I give him a reply.
The right hon. Gentleman forgets where our Forces are. He forgets we have Forces in the British Army of the Rhine, Forces in the Middle East, contingents in

Malta, in Gibraltar, in Africa, and in Eritrea, and, in particular, large Forces in Malaya and Hong Kong. If all those Forces in those theatres were concentrated in this country, we should be able to produce very large formations. [Laughter.] What do hon. Members want? To abandon Malaya and take our troops out of that theatre, or to abandon Hong Kong? Surely hon. Members do not expect us to undertake tasks of that kind. We have to meet our commitments wherever we are called upon to undertake those tasks. Obviously, while we are undertaking those tasks, far in excess of tasks ever undertaken by previous Governments in peace-time, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman on that—

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that he has not got to maintain, as other Governments had to before the war, an Army of between 50,000 and 60,000 in India.

Mr. Shinwell: That was not a commitment. It was not anything analogous to the position either in Hong Kong or Malaya, where we expect trouble at any time. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot use that argument in support of the contention that we are wasting money. I challenge hon. Members opposite, whether they have been in the Services or not, to produce any evidence of waste in the Services. Let them do it. They have failed to do it so far.
We have non-effective charges of £16 million upon pensions and the like. Are we expected to reduce these amounts? Of course not. I claim that the money spent on the Services are well spent and that, all things considered—our commitments overseas, our high training commitments in this country and in the B.A.O.R.—we are in a position which, if not entirely satisfactory, is one from which we can build up from the existing Forces something that can make an effective contribution to the strength of the Western Union nations.
I pass from that to a question raised yesterday by my hon. Friends behind me about the Forces for the Korean operations. First, I should like to say that the decision of His Majesty's Government to send Forces to Korea has been universally applauded in the United States of America.

Mr. S. O. Davies: What about in this country?

Mr. Shinwell: The American Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson, has extended a cordial welcome to our decision. I have to tell the House that, in addition to the calling up of Reserves for the Navy, it may be necessary to take similar measures in respect of Regular Reserves for the Army. But I now give my hon. Friends the assurance that no soldier under 19 years of age will be sent to Korea. This means that no National Service men will be sent to Korea, except in very exceptional circumstances. There may be some categories where it is impossible to find other men, and we may have to call upon certain National Service men. But, other than that, we do not propose to take any action.
I want to say a final word to some of my hon. Friends behind me who have genuine convictions on matters of war and peace. We in the Government fully recognise the strength of opinion, and the moral force behind that opinion, which exists in certain quarters. But in existing circumstances it is impossible for us to adopt a pacific attitude. I said yesterday, and I repeat it, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has emphasised it, that we have no sinister or aggressive designs on any other country or any other people. We want to be at peace with everybody. We have no desire to take the offensive. But, if, having afforded an opportunity to certain countries—or one country, if we like—to associate with the United Nations organisation and subscribe to the provisions of its Charter, having afforded that opportunity and having discovered that that opportunity is not fully utilised, then, clearly, we must take the necessary precautions.
Events in Korea and elsewhere are all indications of what may happen. We fervently hope that nothing will occur to destroy the peace of the world. We all desire peace. I would say this of all hon. Members: I am sure that there are no warmongers among us. I dislike the

epithet which is used about certain people in this country. I cannot believe that anybody in his senses desires another war. Certainly, those of us who are associated with the Service Departments and who are familiar with many of the weapons at the disposal of certain countries, and weapons which may very well be at our disposal—indeed, that could not be avoided—realise what horrors may come upon the world and its people if ever the hounds of war are let loose.
The last thing we desire is to witness another international conflict. We thought, at the end of the last war, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford showed his high qualities—as, indeed, did so many others in this House and in the Government and among the rank and file of the country; all credit due to them—that we had heard the last of war and that we could say, "Goodbye to all that." That was our hope, but unhappily, tragically, it would appear that, if war is not imminent, at any rate there is the dread possibility of a similar occurrence—something even more tragic it may be—and that we desire to avoid.
Therefore, there can be no differences among us as to our objective. There is no difference between those who are pacifists, as they are called, and those who are not averse from shedding blood if circumstances demand it, except that while we recognise the genuineness of their convictions, and applaud them for holding strongly by their opinions, we recognise that as a Government, as a nation and as a people, we must respond to the responsibilities which are imposed upon us. They are responsibilities not of our making, not of our volition but imposed upon us by the reluctance of another country to provide that neighbourliness, good will, co-operation and collaboration of which the world is so much in need.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

7.8 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We now return to the subject of newsprint supply which is not perhaps quite so incongruous as it may appear after the very important Debate to which we have been listening, because the supply of newsprint for the great variety of the Press today constitutes one great and powerful arm for informing public opinion and fortifying the public to face the problems and terrors that lie ahead. I think it very clear that it would be most unfortunate if this Debate on newsprint were held in Secret Session. That might rob the Debate of much of the significance which I think hon. Members in all parts of the House attach to it. It would certainly remove from those ears outside, who are listening to what we say, much of what they want to know from the Floor of the House.
I can inform the Minister that there is no question of forcing a vote on this matter. If we did, of course, we might have an even more successful Division than the one we had earlier. It is better that there should be no Division, because every hon. Member must agree on the vital importance of the Press fulfilling what is now a constitutional function. The more we can discuss this question of the supply of newsprint in the absence of rancour and consider the merits of the case as a case, and the more objectively and dispassionately the case can be put, the more successful we may be in persuading the President of the Board of Trade and the Government to examine the matter afresh and attempt to make things easier for the Press of this country.
It is important that we should not approach it from a fractious point of view, and that we should not, for example, take the point of view of a single newspaper, and that I am certainly not going to do. I shall rather attempt to give a general view. In the same way, we should approach the matter from the point of view of the Commonwealth as a whole, and then take into account the discrepancy between the supplies in the United States and those available to our own newspapers here.
If the Press is to give the help which it can and must in future, it must not only have more newsprint, but more confidence in the Government in providing that newsprint for the future, and anything which the President of the Board of Trade can say tonight in the way of restoring confidence to the Press, and to its managers and proprietors, will help to restore confidence in the future of supplies and will do an incredible amount of good in all quarters of the Press.
It is an open fact which is accepted by all, following upon the Royal Commission on the Press, that there is very great importance in securing an adequate supply of newsprint. The Royal Commission on the Press, on page 161 of its Report, said:
We would stress the importance of securing, at the earliest possible date, a supply of newsprint adequate to the needs of the industry.
In the evidence given by the Newsprint Supply Company to the Royal Commission, they used these words, which I think sum up the position better than I can do myself:
Evils flowing from this continued and intensified shortage of newsprint can hardly be exaggerated. The public lacks news and information, and the stimulus of a free and copious discussion of all topics of national interest.
Then, they go on to say:
The British public is definitely becoming an ill-informed public, as many instances reveal. Having regard to British responsibilities abroad and British problems at home, this should be regarded as a major and political problem.
It is as such that we want to raise it this evening. This quotation ends:
It can only be solved by putting the Press in a position to discharge adequately its full normal functions.
If I am to address myself to this subject in the spirit which I announced at the opening, it will be necessary for me rapidly to run over the following points. First, to make some reference to the past history of this business and to weigh the effect of the newsprint supply shortage this year; then to refer to the newsprint outlook for 1951 and to discuss some of the remedies which we suggest might be possible for the Government to take.
I say straight away that, on the close examination of this matter, there is no single remedy which can be applied


alone to solve this problem altogether. That is the result of my own very careful examination over the last week since we decided to raise this subject. There is, however, this opportunity of restoring confidence, and, by a variety of methods and remedies, supplying more newsprint to the newspapers.
I think the main facts of the story since the end of the last war are pretty well known. The 1945 contracts with Canada were cut by the Government when Lease-Lend ended. These contracts were for about 224,000 tons annually, but only 93,000 tons were imported in 1946. After the American loan, new contracts were entered into providing for a gradually steady increase, and these were approved by the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) indicated on 1st May:
… the Board of Trade … wrote a letter in which they said:
'The Government would be prepared to provide exchange and import licences for 260,000 tons of newsprint in respect of 1948, and 300,000 tons in each of the three following years, and you could contract in Canada on this basis.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1425.]
This was addressed to the Newsprint Supply Company, and those words were confirmed in the same Debate by categorical statements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the President of the Board of Trade interrupted me at Question Time the other day, he sought to remind me of my own moral behaviour, which I hope is quite pure and spotless before the House, and trusted that I should never recommend the breaking of contracts. I should like to ask him if he himself and his Government have not—if he does not like the words broken contracts—at least shuffled out of contracts with the Canadian suppliers, in view of certain difficulties in which we were placed? There is no doubt that, as a result, confidence in Canada, which is a vital source of supply to this country, has been very much shaken.
Continuing with the story, orders within the original contracts were then entered into for 150,000 tons in 1947 and for 300,000 tons in the three years following. These orders having been cut in July, 1947, a new agreement was entered into for 105,000 tons in 1947 against a

contract figure of 150,000 tons, while the imports for 1948 and 1949 were to be 100,000 tons. In January of this year, the Newsprint Supply Company were informed of the decision to cut all imports for the first half of this year.
It was only on 9th May that the Government agreed to provide dollars for the import of 25,000 tons from Canada in the second half of this year. By this time, the Canadian Mills were heavily oversold, the majority of their products having gone to America, and the United Kingdom is likely to receive only 10,000 tons in 1950. If they compare that figure of 10,000 tons with the original figure of 300,000 tons, hon. Members will see what a genuine crisis is facing the newsprint suppliers and the Press at the present time.
The position therefore today is that the six-page position on newspapers—the seven-page outlook having ended in the early part of July—for the ordinary daily can be maintained only by drawing on stocks, and, for the first time for a period which I feel is so long that I do not like to mention it, the Newsprint Supply Company and those involved have to sink their reserves below the figure which the Government themselves acknowledged to be the minimum figure, namely, 100,000 tons. If we continue like this, at an average running-down rate which I have ascertained to be about 1,500 tons a week, it is likely that we shall have a reserve of only 65,000 tons to meet all eventualities by the end of the year.
The reason why this situation is so serious is that the real rub and hardship is going to fall round about Christmas time. At that time, it may well be, quite apart from the international situation, that the Baltic and the St. Lawrence River will be frozen up, and that emergency supplies will be very hard to come by. Further, there is the great uncertainty of the international position, and I am not surprised that all those with whom I have discussed this matter take a very grim view of the possibility of being able to maintain even the six-page daily newspaper.
Hon. Members may well ask why there is difficulty in publishing at this time when there are only six pages for the normal daily. This necessitates a short digression


on my part to discuss the effect upon the newspapers generally of a shortage of newsprint. Take the question of providing the public with foreign news. There is no doubt that in a six-page newspaper, once it has been decided to provide certain space for different subjects—to do a little bit for this and a little bit for that; a little bit for sport, finance, and so forth—no room is left for maintaining a continuous and informed interest in public affairs on the part of the British people, and that is why the evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Press was right in saying:
The British public is becoming definitely uninformed on many of the major issues of the day.
The newspapers have to confine their space almost entirely to items of the day and are unable to feed the public with warnings about the future.
Let us take the subject of sport. The effect of the present shortage of newsprint is rather anomalous. If one wants to get the very best accounts of sport, apart from the mere results of sporting events, one has to look to the most expensive papers, for it is only in the most expensive that it is possible to give a full account of sporting events, quite apart from the results. We know it is possible to purchase an evening paper in return for a penny and find who has won the 2.30 or the 3.30, or anything else—and if it is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition we are all very much gratified—but one cannot read a proper account of sport unless one buys an expensive paper, which means that the people are not getting the full accounts on sport which they deserve, thanks to the shortage of newsprint.
A further problem, which is another anomalous result of the shortage of newsprint, is that all the various types of newspapers are affected differently. The newspapers which stand to give a full chronicle of national events and sell at a large sum of money, are shipped in one way, and the six-page newspapers are prejudiced in the way I have described. In fact, it is what one may describe as the popular newspapers who depend on selling the news only by headlines and by strip cartoons who do not suffer so badly from the shortage of newsprint as their rivals. I have never been one to make

any differentiation between the different organs of the Press, and I believe it is just as well not to do so, but the fact is that the people who want to get a considered and educated opinion on events are being hit much more hardly than those who want to take in the news by the eyes, or by the strip cartoon.
I think this is a most undesirable result of the shortage of newsprint. But when we go further and look at the problems of circulation, size, and fair distribution, we find further difficulties. The distribution of newsprint is run by a rationing committee with which the Government keep contact, so I have only a limited power in putting questions on this matter to the Government. I should like to suggest the possibility of adjusting distribution so that an individual newspaper is able to decide whether it wants to "go nap" on size or on circulation, because the shortage of newsprint today very often benefits the person who makes a stunt and thereby gets a wider circulation, and does not leave sufficient independent authority to individual newspapers themselves to decide whether they want to specialise on size or circulation. If the President of the Board of Trade can help in that way without upsetting the constitutional machinery which already exists, that, I believe would be favoured by certain sections of the Press.
I have given some description of the effect of the shortage of newsprint on the newspapers, but my general impression for 1950, without overstating my case, which I said I was not going to do, is that the shortage of supplies could be faced with less concern if there was hope that some more newsprint might be available some time this year from some source, and if there were definite prospects for more for next year.
This leads me to examine the question of the future. The Canadians, under their arrangements, demand continuity of contracts. They required the Newsprint Supply Company to let them know by 30th June this year the tonnage to be imported in 1951. As yet a further example of the dilatory and muddled manner in which the Government have handled this matter, the Board of Trade refused up to 29th June, 1950, to allow the Newsprint Supply Company to enter


into commitments beyond 30th June, 1951. It was only at a later date, on 20th July, that the President of the Board of Trade announced that dollars would be made available for the import of a further 37,500 tons in the second half of 1951. He said, as reported in HANSARD of that date:
Provided that the Newsprint Supply Company can place the necessary contracts for delivery before the end of that year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2463.]
I cannot speak officially on behalf of the Newsprint Supply Company, and no doubt we shall hear more about that subject in this Debate, but I believe it to be the case that it has been possible through the generosity of the Canadians to adjust their supplies and to accommodate this country to that extent. If so, we must agree that a certain advance has been made by the concession for the second half of 1951, but, even so, that means that the six-page-at-the-most newspaper will be able to be continued right through 1951, but without any hope of any additional supply or without any hope of getting back to the level of reserves which the Government themselves already regarded as being basic—namely, 100,000 tons.
Therefore, we are going to face 1951, with all the possibilities of the troubles there may be, with the possibility of a General Election, whether it takes place before or after the New Year—it is impossible to say, but with the possibility of the election falling within this time—and with no reserve and no adequate promise from the Government of further amounts forthcoming. Therefore, hon. Members will see that it is very likely that our newspapers will be further cut down, unless the Government in this Debate can give a further assurance to the industry.
Now I come to the latter half of what I want to say in discussing remedies. The position of imports is a very difficult one, because, of course, we are bound by dollar exchange, and I think we shall find it extremely difficult to get much more this year from the Canadian mills owing to our handling of the situation. The President of the Board of Trade is right in saying that the majority of their supplies

have gone to the United States of America, and he is perfectly right to say that the Americans, compared with us, are getting an absolute glut of newsprint.
I heard recently of a friend of mine who carefully weighed himself before starting on an air journey back to this country. He arrived with his baggage and himself at almost exactly the same weight, but he made the mistake of buying two American newspapers just before boarding the plane, and was refused entry. We all know how these American newspapers are packets of stuff, and how almost every other country is doing better in this way than we are. Even the Australian newspapers are running 18 and 20 pages whereas we have only enough to stick to the very modest and skimpy amounts allowed to us by our Government.
Taking into consideration the difficulties of the dollar shortage, I must make an appeal to the Government that if the international situation permits, more dollars may be released for this perfectly legitimate end, and that we may fit better into the general system of imports from Canada which was almost part of our economy in the past. The position of Scandinavia is a very difficult one, and I think they are supplying us with almost as much as they can manage. It has to be remembered, too, that a good many of our Scandinavian supplies come from Finland, which is not situated very conveniently, in view of the international situation.
On the question of the next remedy, that of exports, the President of the Board of Trade said on 18th July:
We are considering, at present, what the volume of our exports should be for next year; but I hope that hon. Members will think twice before they press us to reduce the level of our exports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2233.]
I want to take up with the President his remarks when he said that the Government are considering what the volume of our exports should be for next year. I presume that to mean that their mind is not absolutely made up. Therefore, I must ask the President to reconsider this question of exports for the coming year. The raising of our exports from the neighbourhood of 60,000 tons to 100,000 tons has made all the difference to the British Press.
I should be the last to advocate the breaking of a contract, and I do not intend to do so. But, as Australia takes 75,000 tons of our 100,000 tons of exports, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not get together with the Australian Government or—which would be much more valuable—call a general Commonwealth discussion, or encourage these interested to do so, so that the Commonwealth may discuss the pooling of its resources in newsprint. We should, thereby, ensure some equality of distribution which takes account not only of Australia but also of South Africa, Bermuda, Trinidad, Singapore and other parts of our Commonwealth and Empire.
I should like to acknowledge the efforts and the interests of the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Menzies, on this problem during his visit here. There is no desire on the part of the British Press or of the Opposition to prejudice Australia, or to arouse any threat that Australia, owing to the demand for dollars, would turn to other sources, and so forth. But I suggest that the whole of this Commonwealth newsprint situation wants discussing, with the energy which we always ask the Government to bring to bear upon our economic problems on an Empire scale. That is a reasonable request, and I do not believe the President of the Board of Trade should turn a deaf ear to it. He ought to give an assurance that, compared with the comparatively liberal supplies of newsprint in Australia, our own Press will be better treated in this country.
The next remedy is home production. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the mills at home are now nearing full production. My own impression is that they were originally asked to step up to about 71½ per cent. of their pre-war production. Now, I understand, some of them are able, if permitted, to go above that figure. I understand, from my own inquiries, that their difficulties arise chiefly from the provision of raw materials for the mill, in some cases pulp and in one case logs. If it is possible to step up the raw materials, the British Press can obtain more material from the home mills. I hope the Government will be able to make some announcement on encouraging increased production in the home mills. If so, by this Debate and by this method we shall have extracted a little more newsprint for our Press.
On the ratio of newsprint supplied to periodicals and dailies, it would be extremely invidious for the Opposition to take sides as between periodicals, dailies, weeklies, provincial papers and Sunday papers and others. In March of this year the Government freed the periodicals from control. Some of them decided to print on paper, better than ordinary newsprint, called "mechanical printing paper." The result was that some of our home mills turned over some of their production to this paper and, to that extent, prejudiced the production of newsprint for the ordinary dailies and other weekly newspapers. I have done a great deal of research into this subject. I find the result is that there are about 25,000 tons more being allowed to what are known technically as periodicals, small users and other purposes than last year. If we could get a few tons from this source to supplement the dailies and other newspapers, that would be a little remedy which, when all is amassed together, would provide more for our home newspapers. We do not desire to take sides, but we do want fair shares.
There are other types of papers, the provincials and weeklies, which are of special value. The provincial newspapers have a special problem of their own. I have read their representations. It is true to say that in a good many cases, though not in every case, the whole paper amount is not being taken up by individual provincial newspapers. But there are many cases of provincial weeklies, such as exist in my own constituency, where a great effort is made to make the local paper a chronicle of events.
The paper is sent overseas to people who have lived in the district. When it reports a bazaar, every person taking part has to have his or her name in the paper, otherwise they are offended. When it reports a garden fete, even those who provide the refreshments for tea have to be mentioned, otherwise circulation would not be maintained. I have often helped the local reporter with names of those serving at these estimable functions. They are not political—I have a local personal life as well as a political one.
I plead that this sort of weekly newspaper should be allowed sufficient newsprint to keep going. There is also the


special problem of the evening provincial newspapers. All this question of allocations between different types of periodicals, different types of London newspapers, and different types of provincial papers, mornings and evenings and weekly papers, wants very careful handling, particularly by the constitutional machinery of the newsprint people themselves. I know the President has been receiving deputations and I hope that he will consider these matters when he receives representations in future. I hope that he will do much to clear up many misunderstandings.
I have concluded the case I wanted to develop for obtaining more newsprint for our Press, of all sorts, in this country. I have not taken a particular line, nor have I wished to support a particular newspaper. I wish to put this matter on the constitutional basis, and to say that newsprint, like other matters we have been considering on Defence, is the material of an army for informing public opinion and an army which the Government have wilfully neglected and, we believe, have betrayed. It is, therefore, up to the President to give us an answer today which, taking into account the difficulties I have been at pains to mention and to put as fairly as I could, will get from one or more of the sources I have mentioned some more newsprint for our Press, which has a constitutional and honourable position in our country.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I do not intend to intervene for more than a few minutes; indeed, it would be very wrong of me to do so after the very knowledgeable and detailed speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). It is, of course, fortuitous that this Debate should be taking place immediately after our very great Debate on matters relating to the very existence of this country, and life and death. It is fortunate that that Debate should be followed immediately by a Debate upon the subject of newsprint and the information that is given to the public.
In this rapidly changing world, in which so many Government experiments, and so on, are being conducted in various parts of the world—changes in science affecting the mode of life of almost all

of us—it is only right that we should get the fullest and the very best information. Unfortunately, we have at present not only a small amount of newsprint, but we are threatened with an actual cut. One realises that owing to the great demands that are now being made in various countries, there is a shortage of newsprint. Ordinarily, newspaper proprietors and those who supply newsprint would have been looking ahead and planning.
I charge the Government with not having done two things: indeed, I am not sure that even the war-time Government was not partly responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves today. First, they did not at any time pay sufficient attention to the importance of supplying the public with full information about all matters; second, it has been thought, apparently, that newsprint could be bought from week to week or month to month, just like any other commodity, whereas, in fact, this is a matter of long-term contracts which have to be entered into over a long period.
The result has been that contracts, unfortunately, have been broken. Nothing worse can possibly happen to any people or, indeed, to any person than broken contracts. We have broken our contracts, especially with Canada, on more than one occasion, and it has done us a considerable amount of harm, and rightly so. We in this country have always laid great stress upon the sanctity of contracts, and it is upon that, that our reputation has been built up throughout the world. Once made, a contract should be carried out.
What is required is long-term planning. I ask the President of the Board of Trade: What have the Government really got in mind for the future? What is the minimum amount of newsprint which they think is required for a newspaper so that it can give its public, in a proper form, the fullest information that it could possibly give? I suggest that the very minimum size of a newspaper is eight pages. Anything less than that is bound to lead to trouble, not only to the newspaper and its staff but in reducing the information which can be given to the public in general. What priorities will be given to newsprint when we have to buy it from dollar countries? Will it have a high or a low priority? If the President of the Board of Trade could


answer those two questions it would be of immense value to the newspaper world.
I deeply regret the cut in newsprint since the beginning of the war, in particular because of the effect it has had upon our young writers. The great essayists of the past spent their apprenticeship and learned their trade on the newspapers—men like Chesterton, Belloc and A. G. Gardiner; one can go further back to Thackeray, Dickens and the like. It was in the newspaper world that they really began. Nowadays, there is very little opportunity for the brilliant young man wishing to acquire a mastership of language and of his trade. He may write something absolutely brilliant, only to find that the sub-editor has ruthlessly put a blue pencil through it and the whole of his work has been reduced to a sentence or two. That is really bad for the whole country—not merely for that young man but for the literature and the education of all of us. I deeply regret that that is happening today.
The right hon. Gentleman very rightly referred to the provincial newspapers. They perform two functions. They perform the function of the national newspaper and give the national news, but they also have to deal with the particular area in which they circulate, and they have to cover the whole of that area. It is, therefore, only right that they should have especial protection from the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman has described the local weekly. I would describe it as the family paper—the paper which is taken home and read from cover to cover, including all the advertisements.
There is one local paper at home, produced not quite in my constituency but just outside it, which, I remember, was brought home by my father on Wednesdays, and we all read it from beginning to end. I still look forward to receiving that paper. I still read it, beginning with the auctioneers' advertisements and then going on to the full accounts of the concerts, marriages, local shows, the list of those who attended the funerals, and so on. Those are really essential in the country districts. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pay heed to this, and will see that such newspapers get a fair quota of the newsprint available.

7.47 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I want to say a particular word for the provincial Press—the evening and weekly newspapers produced in the provinces, especially the small ones. I have a feeling that they are very important indeed to our morale and our happiness, and to our community life. I know of some local weekly papers which are so well read that they literally go into every house in the town. Indeed, I know of one whose circulation is higher than the number of houses in the town. This is very important, from a great many aspects, and I want in my brief remarks to emphasise what they are.
There is, first of all, a very great variety in the different facets of English life which they portray and mirror, and there is also a great variety in their ownership. Many of them are independent single units. Others belong to small groups, and this great variety in ownership ensures a great variety of points of view. I am not going to say that I subscribe to the view that large groups of newspapers are necessarily to be criticised, but I think we would all agree that the extent to which our newspapers are in independent hands and are free to exercise the splendid tradition of independence for which our editors have so long striven is a source of great strength to us.
In the rural areas they are to a considerable extent the only newspapers which are read. There are parts of my constituency where I am convinced the farmer looks forward to his weekly paper and does not, in fact, get any other paper. It is to him not merely his contact with the outside world but his means of learning about the markets and about matters that affect his business, and it also provides him with the lighter reading which he wants during his week-ends.
There is an enormous amount of local sport which it is important that we should encourage and there are, also, the shows which take place among agricultural societies, dramatic societies and a number of intellectual societies which thrive locally and whose shows need to be reported and deserve to be reported. An editor wrote to me the other day in this connection and said, "I have to use too much blue pencil." By that he meant two things. First, he meant the sense of discouragement and


frustration among his staff, who go out to get good stories and then find either that there is no room to print them or that they have to be cut down to a few lines. Secondly, he meant that important aspects of the local life of his town could not be properly represented in the local paper.
Another aspect relates to the contribution which these local papers make to the efficiency, the integrity and the democratic background of our local government. There are some towns in which there is virtually only one party on the local council. The only critic of the activities of such a council is the local paper. It is not good for anyone to be without criticism and the local paper serves an important function in criticising, fairly and shrewdly, the activities of the local council and of local officials. The liberty of the citizen depends to some extent upon the vigilant exposure by the local paper of anything which is bad or open to proper criticism in the community. The paper, therefore, makes a real contribution towards our way of life, quite apart from the entertainment and social life which is mirrored by the good, responsible local paper.
There is yet another aspect which I consider most important. No small enterprise can start without having to face the difficulty of competing with the existing, established enterprise, which has good will and custom. The small enterprise must, therefore, advertise; it must advertise locally and there must be a paper in which it can buy space. An undue limit upon the paper available is, therefore, a definite deterrent to the development of the small business, the small manufacturing enterprise, the small commercial business, the small boarding house—a deterrent to any development of that kind which is new and fresh. A great part of our strength depends upon the very great variety of small businesses which we have always been in the habit of developing and extending. Indeed, many of them become quite important contributors to our export trade.
I have communicated with the editors of all the local papers which serve my constituency and its district. They tell me that they appreciate the difficulties which the nation faces over dollars. Equally, they all tell me that they do not think it is entirely fair that so large a part

of the home production of newsprint should be exported. I do not think they would wish us to break contracts, but I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to answer one specific question. Of all the tons of newsprint which were exported last year, or which he estimates will be exported in the next year, how much is subject to contract and how much is not?
Lastly, I would say that, whether it be in peace or in war, or in a period of anxiety such as that which we now face, the influence of the whole of our Press—national, Sunday, evening and local—is of the very greatest importance in helping the Government, of whatever party it may be, to guide the nation, and in helping the nation itself to be of good heart and of good morale. It is, therefore, false economy to deny our people the means of expression and the means of mirroring their thoughts, their views, their aspirations and their hopes.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Bishop: I have first to declare an interest in this matter, as I am the manager of the Newsprint Supply Company and Chairman of the Newsprint Rationing Committee. In these posts I am responsible to a board of directors who represent the whole of the newspaper industry in the country; and, when I say that, I mean literally every publication in the country which is classified as a newspaper, as distinct from magazines or, as we normally call them, periodicals. In the Supply Company we are concerned only with newspapers, and that covers very many hundreds of publications, ranging from the great national dailies, at one end of the scale, right through the whole range of the provincial papers and the local papers down to even a few small sheets which are given away free and which live entirely by advertisements.
For the last two years our job has been two-fold: first, in co-operation with the Paper Control, it has been to try to ensure an adequate supply of newsprint for the newspapers; secondly, it has been to try to ensure its equitable sharing among all the people for whom we are responsible. We have always worked in these tasks in double harness with the Paper Control. On the supply side, they have always dealt direct with the British newsprint mills. They have been responsible, until very recently, for the raw


materials for the mills; they have fixed the production of the mills. We, on our side, have had the task of buying manufactured newsprint from abroad—of course, under Government licence.
I want to say a few words about the rationing side of the problem, because it is one of very great importance. Since the Rationing Committee started in 1940, the principle has always been that of fair shares for everyone, without any discrimination. From the beginning we set our faces against anything in the form of what I might call qualitative rationing. We have never concerned ourselves with the value of what might be put into the papers concerned. I emphasise this point because, lately, some claims have been made by individual newspapers and groups of newspapers for special consideration on various grounds. The provincial newspapers have been mentioned here, and the local newspapers, and we know that there is a very soft spot in the hearts of many hon. Members and, indeed, in the Newsprint Rationing Committee, too, for them.
But we have to be fair to all. The case which has been made for the provincial papers was supported by a letter in "The Times" yesterday from a local editor, who compared the obligations falling on a local paper with those falling on the national Sunday papers, much to the disadvantage of the national Sunday papers, which have sometimes been the subject of comment in this House, too. It is quite true that a 2d. provincial weekly has the same number of pages allowed to it as a 2d. Sunday paper, but it has to be remembered that the nine-page ration which the Sunday paper receives today, in common with the provincial weekly, is a very much smaller proportion of that Sunday paper's pre-war consumption than it is of the pre-war consumption of the provincial paper. In other words, fair shares have not necessarily meant equal shares, in the sense of equal sacrifices. Under this system, those who had most to give up have given up most. That applies also to the great national dailies, and it is a point which should be borne in mind when we consider rationing and special claims for special groups.
One point I want above all to make on this rationing is this. I hope no one will suggest we should have the

rationing of papers according to our conceptions of what the value of their contents may be. It would be an impossible task; it would involve censorship, and it would be a real threat to the freedom of the Press. I hope this question of rationing will be left to the Newsprint Rationing Committee, which has had 10 years' experience now of the job, which is representative of the whole industry, and on which also the Director of the Newsprint Division of Paper Control always sits.
I want to refer briefly to one or two things that have been said in this controversy about newsprint during the last few weeks. The President of the Board of Trade has been rather worried by Questions on this subject, and has had to give a great many answers. In the course of them he has said one or two things on which I shall have to join issue with him. He said in answer to one Question that only this year the newspapers were left quite free to settle the size of their papers within broad limits, and that the newspapers were to blame for having made too optimistic estimates; and he said the Government had accepted the estimates made by the Newsprint Supply Company.
It is really important that the House should understand where the responsibility lies for the situation that we are facing now, and I should like in that connection to quote one letter we received from the Board of Trade. It is dated 27th March. It was written in reply to the pressure by the Newsprint Supply Company for permission to maintain the seven-page size of papers which had been granted for the period of the General Election. The letter says:
It has been agreed that discretion should be given to the Newsprint Rationing Committee to authorise the printing of seven-page newspapers from time to time when the necessary paper is available, provided that the stocks of newsprint available for newspapers should not be allowed to fall below 100,000 tons.
And this is what I should like the House to observe:
The calculation of the amount of paper available will continue to be made as at present by the Newsprint Division of the Paper Control, who will work on the assumption that no dollars will be available for the purchase of newsprint. Exports of newsprint will have priority over increases in home consumption, though not over the amount necessary to ensure the six-page paper. Arrangements will be made for the Newsprint Division to notify to the Newsprint Rationing Committee from time to time what balance is estimated to be available for home newspapers.


Not, we thought, a very friendly letter after 10 years of co-operation between our Company and Committee and the Government Department concerned.
Really, it is a little hard to receive a letter of that kind saying it is the function solely of the Government Department to make the calculations, and that we shall be informed from time to time of how much newsprint is to be available for us. It is a little hard to have the responsible Minister coming to tell the House, when things have gone wrong, that we were to blame, and that it was the over-optimistic estimates of the newspapers that led him astray through his accepting those estimates.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Will he give the reference in HANSARD to show that I said that the newspapers were to blame?

Mr. Bishop: The word "blame" is what the right hon. Gentleman objects to. What he said was that the newspapers'
… estimates of newsprint available proved far too optimistic, and the increase to seven pages … could not be maintained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 1537.]
If the right hon. Gentleman objects to my saying that he meant the newspapers were to blame, I shall certainly withdraw with pleasure, but I let the facts speak for themselves.
That letter which I have just quoted also indicates that the freedom—the so-called freedom—that was given to the newspapers to fix the number of their pages within broad limits, as the right hon. Gentleman said, was quite illusory. What we were told was that we could have seven-page papers when newsprint was available; and then we were told that newsprint would not be available because the Government were going to give priority to exports for everything above what was needed to maintain the six-page basis.
I do not want to press the matter too far and I pass now to the future. The Company is deeply concerned about the future, and the future does depend upon the recognition that the Government have the power and authority to determine these things, and we want the Gov-

ernment to continue the same friendly co-operation with this industry that has prevailed through most of the 10 years since the Company was founded.
I should like to give the House just one or two figures in the form of a sort of profit and loss account for newsprint, comparing the year 1950 with the year 1949. On the credit side, at the beginning of this year we could look forward to an increase in production by the home mills, due to the greater availability of raw materials, of 93,000 tons, while imports arranged by the Newsprint Supply Company were increased in 1950 by 38,000 tons as compared with 1949, giving a total increase from those two sources of newsprint of 131,000 tons. I do say that on the basis of such an increase in the available supply, it was reasonable for the newspapers to look forward to some modest increase in their consumption.
The reason that it has not proved posible, or that it proved possible only for a very brief time, and then at the expense of our stocks, is to be found in the definite decisions and actions taken by the Government. First, as my right hon. Friend has told the House, the Government cut off the whole of our Canadian imports, and though they have partially reversed that decision in recent weeks, and allowed us to buy 25,000 tons—if we can get it—this year from Canada, that still compares with the total of 100,000 tons that we had last year. We do not expect to be able to get more than about 10,000 tons because the decision was taken too late. Therefore, we expect a loss on that account of 90,000 tons. But then, having cut off our Canadian supplies, the Government decided to increase the exports from the home mills, and exports from the home mills have been stepped up this year from 60,000 tons last year to 100,000 tons this year—a loss of a further 40,000 tons to the home consumers.
Finally, by releasing the periodicals from control—and I make no complaint of this: we do not grudge other people their freedom because we still have to wear our chains—but still, by releasing the periodicals from control in March this year, and allowing their consumption to increase, we have a further loss from the common pool which we estimate at about 27,000 tons. While the prospects were


of an increased supply under the improved conditions, so that we might have had altogether in the pool. 131,000 tons extra this year, the decisions taken by the Government, set off against that, have in fact, meant a loss amounting to a total of 157,000 tons. That 157,000 tons would have been more than enough to enable the newspapers to be on an eight-page basis this year. Not that we asked for that. We were more modest. We should have been very satisfied with a little progress this year, and the prospect of a little more progress next year. The action of the Government in the matters to which I have referred, has deprived us of progress this year, and of the prospect of progress in the next year as well.
I must say a few words about our Canadian contracts. I do not propose to say more, because the subject is very familiar to the House and has already been referred to this evening. We are grateful to the Government for having permitted the import of 37,500 tons under our Canadian contracts in the second half of next year as well as in the first half. That puts us right under our contracts for at least the next 18 months.
The whole story is a sorry one, and the view of the Canadians about it was expressed in a letter in "The Times" the other day by Mr. Goyder, who represents the biggest group of our Canadian suppliers. In any case, we are to get only 75,000 tons from Canada next year; that is the maximum quantity we can ask for in view of the cut in the contracts made this year. The contracts have what we call an escalator clause, which limits the increase in any one year to 50,000 tons above what was ordered in the year before. However, we are thankful for what has been done, and we hope that this points the way to a return to continuity and permanence under these long-term contracts with Canada.
Our arrangements with Scandinavia are more satisfactory. We have been able to step up our imports since imports were freed to about the same total as pre-war, and there is little prospect of our being able to make any rapid or big increase in supplies from that quarter. But the arrangements are very friendly and satisfactory, and I hope they will continue so.
It is really to the home mills that we must look if there is to be any substantial improvement in supplies in the immediate future. I know that the Government have taken a different view, but in a reply the other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade put it back on to us, and said that future prospects depended on the success of the Newsprint Supply Company in their efforts to secure further imports. Well, we shall do all we can, although I have indicated the limitations.
One of the difficulties at present is that our friends the Australians—and we do not blame them for it—are not only taking 75,000 tons from us this year, but are also competing—and very keen competitors they are—in every market where we are trying to buy, and are snapping up any small surplus there-may be at prices far beyond anything we find ourselves able to pay. While the present acute world shortage of newsprint continues—and we have to recognise that that is caused primarily by the increased consumption in America—nearly the whole world is suffering from a newsprint famine, and we must be able to defend ourselves and to provide for ourselves.
Within the last 48 hours we have heard from the Board of Trade that there is a revised estimate of production from the home mills which will give us a few thousand more tons in the second half of this year, and for that we are very grateful. It may perhaps just make the difference in these next few months, though it is too early to say that yet. I will say nothing further about exports, except that we think they are too high. We quite understand the view of the Australians about that; we quite understand the attitude of the Prime Minister of Australia in pressing this matter with the British Government; and I think the British newspapers rather envy the Australian newspapers having a Government which presses the case for their own consumers so strenuously.
The issue at the moment is this. In spite of the improved prospects of supplies that have emerged during the last week or two, we still do not see any prospect for 1951 of any increase above the six-page basis. There is no reserve that we can see for any kind of emergency or disappointment in supply that


may occur. There is no reserve for any special consumption such as a General Election, or any increased consumption for the Festival of Britain—or, I might add, in connection with the demands that may be made on newspapers by world affairs in the coming months. I think the House should know that, should a General Election come this autumn, or in the spring, the newspapers will be less able to deal with it than they were able to deal with the election in February of this year.
The six-page basis is quite inadequate for the peace-time needs of newspapers. That has already been said over and over again, both in this House and outside it, and I will not press the point any further. Today, our newspapers are the smallest in the free world. So far from being able to look forward to a gradual expansion and increase on the present six-page basis to at least an eight-page basis, we are at the moment faced with an immediate crisis, and the immediate question whether we can even maintain the six-page basis to the end of this year. The Government have gone some way to meet us by the decisions they have made in the last week or two, but the issue is still open, and the House should realise how serious it is.
Many newspapers have told us that they are simply not prepared to cut their pages any further; they cannot do so if they are to do their duty to their readers and keep themselves on a reasonable economic basis. A further cut will mean a return to the war-time basis of rationing by tonnage, each newspaper being given a quota of tons of newsprint and being left to decide for itself whether to keep within that quota by cutting its pages or by cutting the number of copies it prints. As many newspapers would undoubtedly decide to cut the copies rather than the pages, it means that if this further cut has to be made we shall be back in the miserable condition of newspaper shortage once again, with members of the public being denied the elementary democratic right of buying the newspaper of their own choice.
That is the situation we are trying to avoid. We do not know whether or not we shall succeed. We shall do our best. But I do say that a great deal depends upon the Government, who alone have the

power, and who alone can take the decisions to protect the interests of the newspapers and, through them, of the public. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have something to tell us which will encourage us a little in the effort to carry on, and enable the managements of newspapers, small and large all over the country, to go for their holidays without this very heavy cloud hanging over their heads.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Hargreaves: I should like to pay my tribute to the fair and eminently reasonable way in which the case was presented by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). However, I think we all recognise that the national dailies—the morning papers at least—have not fallen short in their presentation of a statement upon the shortage of newsprint to their readers. We have all been made aware of that in recent days.
I want, if I may, to reinforce the plea that has been made on behalf of the provincial and local papers. I am sure all hon. Members will echo my thoughts. I dislike intensely the politics of the papers printed in Carlisle. One of them, the more important of the two, is owned by the Conservative Association, and a weekly by the Liberal Association. They are the only two papers printed in Carlisle and circulated in Cumberland. I dislike intensely their viewpoint, but the news is essential. It is vital that they should continue to stimulate and to help in every way the local associations of that city and that county. I believe that unless they are able to do that, we are losing a very great deal.
I suggest that from the facts which have been made known to us in recent years the Board of Trade have been enormously helpful. In fact we have had that admission from the Newsprint Supply Company. On the other hand, we cannot afford at this time to limit the value of our exports of newsprint. Competition for the Canadian supplies in terms of price comes from America and Australia, and we are the third member in the field competing for the supplies of newsprint. So it seems to me that the only way in which this endeavour on the part of all of us to meet the needs of the local and provincial papers can be satisfied, is to ask my right hon. Friend


to look again at the possibility of supplying or obtaining additional dollars in order that we may purchase more newsprint for 1951. I believe that every other means of expanding that newsprint has been examined, and I believe that that is the only way in which it can be done.
May I put this to the House and to my right hon. Friend? We are now entering a crisis period in which it is essential that the local papers for which I am pleading should make their readers—the families who depend on those papers for their news—fully aware of the lead that is coming from this House during the next few weeks and months. We must take the ordinary families of this country with us in the action which we are taking. We can only do that if we are fully informed in the way which Members on both sides of the House have described this afternoon.
I believe that in reinforcing the plea for the provincial and local papers, I am doing the right thing. As I indicated earlier, I think that the enormously powerful national dailies can make a very strong representation of their own case day by day, and that it is necessary for those of us who can bring the force of our opinions to bear to urge that dollars should be made available so that the supply of newsprint may be expanded.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Storey: Like the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), I think that the House is indebted to my right hon. Friend who opened this Debate for the very clear manner in which he placed the issues before us. I want to say one or two things about some of the matters which he touched upon, and to reinforce the point which he made that the time has come when some latitude should be given at any rate to the larger weekly papers and perhaps to the "The Times" to decide themselves whether they would rather have it in space or in circulation. After all, we have all had a period in which our sales have been able to adjust themselves to public demand, and I think that the time has come, that adjustment having taken place, when we might be allowed some latitude as to whether we prefer extra sales or extra size.
I do not want to pursue the question of who is to blame for the present posi-

tion. I am much more concerned with the present position which, while it is serious for the newspapers—and may I say that I am interested in newspapers—is much more serious for those whom the newspapers serve—their readers and advertisers. If democracy is to function properly, it must be an informed democracy, but public understanding of affairs and freedom for expression of opinion cannot exist on the basis of six-page papers, to which we appear to be condemned not only for this year but for next year. It must be the aim of all of us to get back to the seven-page basis as soon as possible and soon after that to the eight-page paper which, in my opinion, is the smallest paper which can render that service to the public which it is its duty to render.
The problem of how we are to achieve that aim is, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, not a problem for Great Britain alone. It is a Commonwealth problem. A well-informed Great Britain is essential to the Commonwealth, if the Commonwealth expects Great Britain to remain the corner stone of the Commonwealth. A well-informed Commonwealth is essential to Great Britain if Great Britain wishes to see the unity of the Commonwealth maintained. It is the problem of a world shortage of newsprint and a Commonwealth shortage of dollars, and I think that it should be tackled on a Commonwealth basis, instead of being allowed to degenerate into a dog fight between the Dominions and this country as to who can get the greater shares of the dollars available or of the newsprint which is produced in this country.
The minimum needs of the Commonwealth should be the first charge on the newsprint production in the sterling area of the Commonwealth and on whatever newsprint can be bought from Scandinavia. If this is insufficient, the Government should provide sufficient dollars to cover the minimum requirements, and not until these minimum requirements have been met should individual countries and individual newspaper companies be allowed to compete in the open market. This may sound Utopian, but I think that if it were put to the Commonwealth countries in the right way, all would agree to co-operate.
I am encouraged in that belief by the resolution passed at the recent Imperial


Press Conference at Ottawa. That resolution declared that Government restrictions on newsprint supplies were prejudicial to the public understanding of world affairs and limited the freedom of expression of opinion. And it urged upon the Governments of the Commonwealth that free and full publication of information should not be limited by economic restrictions. If those are the views of all the papers of the Commonwealth, surely we can expect them to co-operate to achieve our purpose, and I urge upon the President of The Board of Trade that at least he should make the attempt to get Commonwealth co-operation on this matter.
The shortage of dollars is likely to continue for a long period and there is no prospect of immediate relief unless we can increase our home production or our imports from Sandinavia. In the O.E.E.C. Report this year the Government stated that the great improvement expected in Scandinavian supplies of paper-making woodpulp permits a substantial drop in the projected imports of this raw material from dollar sources. And this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade told us that there was no shortage of raw materials. That has been contradicted from this side of the House.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that he had been told by the paper makers that there was a shortage of raw materials, and we are entitled to ask the President of the Board of Trade, is the failure of the home mills to attain their target due to a lack of raw materials or due to lack of machine capacity? If it is the latter, then it is yet another instance of our troubles being due entirely to the Government failure to bring home to the management and workers of this country the fact that our shortages can be reduced by working a little longer, and of their failure to give an incentive to the management and workers to give that extra work which would enable us to produce the additional newsprint.
With regard to raw materials, it has always seemed to me that to use good timber for the manufacture of newsprint is extravagant and that something should be done to find new raw materials. Now that our only sources of raw materials are either dollar ones or Scandinavia or Finland—areas peculiarly subject to

Russian pressure—it is even more desirable to find alternative raw material within the sterling area of the Commonwealth.
Australia has tackled this problem with great enterprise and their efforts to use the eucalyptus tree have met with a large measure of success. When, during the war, I visited their newsprint mill in Tasmania, I was greatly impressed with the initiative shown in the handling of difficult material and in the quality of the finished product. We should try to do something of the same sort, and particularly we should examine the possibility of using the residual fibre of sugar cane—I hope I may have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this point, which I will repeat. I feel we should examine the possibility of using the residual fibre of sugar cane, which is technically known as bagasse.
I understand that extensive research has been undertaken in the United States where a newspaper is already printed on newsprint made from 100 per cent bagasse. The Argentine also have carried out extensive research in this matter, and in Brazil the papers use 80 per cent. of it in their newsprint. Has any research been undertaken in this country and have any steps been taken to encourage British paper mills to exploit this kind of raw material which is now largely wasted? Not only would it save dollars, not only would it give us an alternative source of supply to Scandinavia, but it would help to develop our West Indian Colonies.
In conclusion, I want to stress again the urgency of finding the means to increase our supplies of newsprint. If newspapers are to render the service which it is their duty to render, if they are to cover world affairs, if they are to cover national affairs, if they are to cover our local affairs, they cannot do so on the six pages which we are promised until the end of next year. It just will not do. During that period we shall not only have our present crisis in international affairs, we expect to have the Festival of Britain, we may have a General Election.
In such events it is quite impossible within the space of six pages to give adequate news service and to ensure a well-informed public opinion. It is quite impossible to give adequate space to ensure that British goods are fully made known to the thousands of visitors we


expect in this country. Therefore, I join with other hon. Members in urging the President of the Board of Trade to make the utmost efforts to find additional supplies of newsprint so that the size of our papers can be increased at an early date.

8.33 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Having listened to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) with that rapt attention which his speeches always command, I still cannot feel that he has helped us to find any solution to the problem with which we are faced. Although he made an eloquent appeal for the development of alternative sources of material supplies—which is a long-term proposition in which I certainly join—he will realise that since the limitation of production at present is not largely raw materials but machine capacity, his proposals are of little short-term value.

Mr. Storey: A longer working week.

Mr. H. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make any additional suggestions to those he made in his speech about the length of the working week, I shall be glad to give way to him, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells), who represents one of the principal areas involved, will be able to deal with his suggestions.
I join with the hon. Member in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) for the restrained way in which he opened this Debate this evening. Although I could not follow the right hon. Gentleman in all the facts to which he treated us, I felt that the greater part of his speech was very restrained and reasonable. Of course, as is usual in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, sometimes his perorations work up to a state of synthetic enthusiasm and he commits himself, no doubt with a feeling that it is the duty of the Opposition to speak in this way, to phrases and charges which the whole burden of his earlier speech has been quite unable to support. Ignoring his peroration, which, I suppose, he felt he had to make, I welcomed the restrained and reasonable manner in which he put the case tonight.
The right hon. Member treated us to an interesting historical survey. A good deal of what he said covering the past four or five years was, I agree, highly

relevant to the situation we are facing. He jumped a little from 1947 to the present day without a very full survey of the intervening period, and I hope to make good that gap in the account which he gave. I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman, although I express my agreement with a lot of what he said, in his account of all the difficulties with which newspapers are faced when supplies of newsprint are restricted. His account of their difficulties was quite a fair one and would be agreed in all parts of the House.
I made a fairly full statement on the newsprint situation in the House nine days ago. Since then, as the right hon. Gentleman commented, I have supplemented that statement with the announcement that dollars would be made available for the purchase of some 37,500 tons in the second half of 1951, making up a total of 100,000 tons in all in the 18 months from July, 1950, to December, 1951. I fear that I shall have little new to add tonight to my statement of nine days ago, but I will try to deal with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who followed him, and by other hon. Members.
Perhaps I should first repeat, in case it may not be clear to some of those who have read the rather perverted accounts of the situation which we have been reading in the past few days, that the Government do not buy newsprint. The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop), tonight made clear this particular division of responsibility. Newsprint is bought by the Newsprint Supply Company, which acts on behalf of the newspaper companies. The hon. Member, of course, explained his position with that important agency.
The Government come into the picture at three main points. First, in relation to the allocation of dollars. Second, in fixing a limit to the amount which the newspaper mills export and, of course, influencing the markets to which it is sent. I emphasise the need for fixing a limit, because if we did not have export licences the amount of newsprint now being exported would be greater. Third, it is the duty of the Government to control the proportions of home newsprint going to newspapers, on the one hand,


and to other users, including periodicals, and so on, on the other hand, and to control to some extent the manufacture of newsprint as compared with other things which can be manufactured with the same capacity. It is true, of course, that the Government are responsible also for import licensing of newsprint from soft currency sources, but, as I am sure the hon. Member for Harrow, Central, would agree, that such import licensing is purely a formality and is in general automatic.
So far as the allocation of dollars is concerned—and I want to deal with that in more detail later—it is true that if we had been able to afford more dollars for Canadian newsprint we would not have had the present situation. I think that is undoubtedly true, but what most newspaper accounts have failed to emphasise, or indeed have indignantly denied, is that, even given that decision, the newspapers themselves did take the view earlier this year that the newsprint position was easier and would justify the taking of risks on the size of newspapers in the first half of this year. I do not think anyone will contest that statement.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden referred to the size of stocks and I think he was concerned, and perhaps rightly concerned, about the size of those stocks if certain contingencies took place which resulted in the cutting off of our present sources of supply. But I am bound to remind the House that only three or four months ago the representatives of the newspapers came to see me and said that in their view stocks were too high at present and involved difficulties of financing and that they could not finance that large volume. They wanted the agreement of the Government to have a larger newspaper or to continue the then size of the newspaper for some time to work off some of those stocks.
As I explained in the House on 18th July, I made no criticism, and I make no criticism now, of the newspapers for taking this optimistic view. That is why I interrupted the hon. Member for Harrow, Central, when I thought I detected him using the word "blame." What I said was:
I imply no criticism of their over-optimism; indeed, as the House knows, the Government accepted the estimates that were made by the Newsprint Supply Company

I went on to say:
Neither they—the Newsprint Supply Company—nor we—the Government—could be blamed for failing to foresee the very remarkable change in world supplies as a result of what is quite a small percentage change in consumption by the United States newspapers, and, in fact, as the House well knows, the total consumption of newsprint by the American Press is on such a huge scale that quite a small percentage change in it is bound to lead to quite serious effects in the supply of newsprint, particularly in the soft currency countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2229.]
That was the statement I made and I am sure the whole House would agree that in that lies the reason for the change in the situation. Certainly, my statement was correct that too optimistic a view was taken. I make it quite clear that I blame no one for that optimistic view, because we agreed with it and accepted it.

Mr. Bishop: I do not want the House to assume that I am accepting at all this charge of over-optimism. I say there never was any over-optimism on the part of the newspapers. We sent a circular to every newspaper, warning them of the dangers ahead and saying that the outlook was affected by several factors:
(a) the total cessation of imports from Canada;
(b) a large increase in exports from the home mills (under Government order);
(c) increased world demand on other non-dollar sources of supply.

Mr. Wilson: I do not for a moment deny what the hon. Member has said. I have a copy of the same letter, but I did not know whether he wanted to bandy about the correspondence in our Debate this evening. I would not have chosen to read out sections from his letters because we have had the happiest relations with him, as he said tonight, over a period of over 10 years. Naturally, one does not want to use letters which pass in the ordinary way of negotiation for the purposes of a controversial Debate. But, if the hon. Member chooses to read an extract from his letter of 4th April to his various constituents—I am referring not to Parliamentary constituents but newspaper constituents—he should go on to read the concluding portion and tell the House that, having said that these factors made the outlook


for the second half of 1950 rather uncertain, he went on to say:
It must not be assumed that the seven-page basis would continue after 2nd July. Indeed, it seems most probable we shall have to revert to the six-page paper, at least for the second half of this year.
The impression—and I am not in any sense criticising the estimate made by the hon. Member, because I cannot see that anyone could make a different estimate—was that he was expecting a seven-page paper for part of the second half of this year and a six-page paper for part. In fact the situation has become so much more serious, as he better than anyone else knows, that we have been fighting very hard and are still fighting very hard even to maintain the six-page newspaper for the second half of the year.
Therefore, I think I am justified in saying, on the basis of that estimate which was made—I did not mean to quote that letter tonight—that events have turned out to be rather more disappointing than the forecast. So I cannot accept any of these accusations that have been made in the Press recently of bad stewardship or bad estimating on the part of the Government. I accept the fact that all of us concerned in these estimates have found that they have not been realised because of the factors I have mentioned and to which the hon. Member quite correctly referred this evening.
The second general point I wish to make is that the recent reduction in the size of newspapers is not a cut in the sense that it is a fall below the level which we expected earlier in the year. As the House knows, newspapers, which had an average size of about four pages some two years ago, which climbed to five and six pages last year, were at the beginning of this year six-page papers.
Before the election it was agreed that the size of the newspapers should be increased to seven pages for the election period, that is for a period of a very few weeks. But before the election the Newsprint Supply Company came to see me and said that they thought that the position was sufficiently easy to justify the continuance of the election increase right up to July. I was more cautious, as I had to be, because the prospective supply position was by no means clear at that time. However, like the Newsprint Supply Company, I hoped that it would be possible to maintain the seven-page newspaper

throughout the first half of the year and not have to revert to six pages immediately after the election. In any event, I thought it wrong that the newspapers should have to come down to six pages and then, immediately after the election, if the supply position permitted, provide that they could increase in size again. The right hon. Gentleman has given us an interesting account of newspaper printing economics. There is nothing more disturbing than sudden changes in the size of a newspaper, which makes planning impossible.
The Newsprint Supply Company was informed that we would agree to the election increase being continued until Easter, and that between the election and Easter we would have a discussion with them to see if it would be possible to continue that increase in the second quarter, that is until July. When we met for this purpose in March the newspaper representatives drew attention to the high level of stocks—I agreed with their remarks—and suggested that instead of the Government coming in periodically to fix the size of the newspapers the trade body should themselves have freedom within limits to fix the size of the papers, provided that stocks did not fall below 100,000 tons. Immediately that request was made I informed them that if that was agreed to they must understand that plans must be made without any assumption of dollar newsprint and without any assumption of any interference with the figure which had been set aside for exports to the Commonwealth. That was clearly understood before the meeting broke up.
This letter, which was afterwards sent confirming the freedom to fix the size of newspapers—and the hon. Gentleman has called attention, perhaps a little ungraciously, to the tone in which it was expressed—merely confirmed what I had said at that meeting. In the light of estimates—I agree with the hon. Member that they were agreed estimates; we had to rely to a considerable extent on the Newsprint Supply Company for estimates—the newspapers, in the light of what they thought they could buy in soft currency countries and from home production, settled within the freedom to fix their own size, that the seven-page paper should continue until July. As they told me at the time, they hoped to have seven pages for a considerable part of the second half of


the year. Surely in the face of that if it is seriously maintained that the Government and the Government alone are responsible for miscalculating the situation over the past few months, and if—some newspapers are maintaining this line—the newspapers are going to say that any reasonable man in the early spring could have foreseen the present situation, then the newspapers are convicting themselves of bad faith.
If in March any reasonable man would have said that we were going to be faced with such a serious supply situation, I do not see how the newspapers themselves in March or April could have fixed the papers at seven pages if they were going to endanger the six-page paper in the second part of the year. To argue, as some editorials have been arguing, that the present supply position should have been foreseen at that time must mean that the newspapers were taking a chance on the higher page newspapers in the hope that if their estimates did go wrong they would be able to organise some campaign for a release of dollars. That was the impression that anyone would form from reading some editorials in recent weeks.
For my part I do not in the slightest charge the industry with bad faith. I believe they fixed the seven-page paper in good faith. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) is shaking his head, but I accept that they thought there would be enough supplies from soft currency areas to make possible, at least, the maintenance of six-page newspapers in the second half of the year. They did it in all good faith, but as it turned out their estimates proved over-optimistic. I do not criticise the trade for that any more than I criticise myself for accepting their estimates.

Mr. Butcher: Was it not on 11th March that Mr. Goyda wrote a letter to "The Times" foreseeing the deficiency in existing supplies?

Mr. Wilson: I believe it was. I well remember 11th March; it happened to be my birthday, and I remember being greeted on my birthday morn with this gloomy forecast. If it is to be said now that I should have been moved by that forecast from Mr. Goyda, who was not entirely a disinterested party, and should have started to turn dollar programmes

upside down, cut expenditure on timber in order to make certain that the newspapers would get the supplies, and so on, then equally, on reading that letter on that Saturday morning, the Newsprint Supply Company should have immediately decided that it was far too dangerous to introduce or maintain seven-page newspapers for more than another two or three weeks.
The two main points which have been brought out so far in this Debate are that the present difficulties are due to the Government, which I think I have done something to answer, though I hope in an uncontroversial manner, because I am not trying to throw blame on the trade, but trying to show that the situation has engulfed both the trade and the Government, because they were not able to forecast the movement of world supplies that has actually taken place. The second thing that has inspired this Debate is some sort of feeling on the part of the Opposition and certainly on the part of certain newspapers that the Government could, if they so wished, change the present position overnight by a wave of some kind of magic wand. I want to rebut both those suggestions.
I do not intend tonight to go over the long Debates that there have been in this House about the Canadian contracts, but I must remind the House that with an acute dollar shortage, particularly in 1947 and 1949, we were continuously faced with the problem whether we were going to cut newsprint or something else, which hon. Gentlemen opposite would have considered as being equally vital. If we had maintained newsprint supplies it could only have been done by further reduction in the supply of timber.
The hon. Member for Newbury has been on his feet a dozen times, to my knowledge, on the question of dollars for Canadian timber. The House knows very well—and he knows very well—how serious has been the timber situation in the past few weeks, for one reason, and one only, and that is the shortage of dollars for Canadian timber last year. Had we cut the Canadian dollar programme for timber still further, in order to maintain these newsprint supplies, we should have greatly endangered the housing programme, and this at a time when the party opposite were disfiguring the posters with stories about letting the builders build you a house now.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Was timber the only other commodity of which we could have gone short? There must have been other ways of arranging our dollar purchases.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have been through this subject in the House. I have never heard him, or any other right hon. Gentleman, suggest on what forms of dollar expenditure with Canada we could have reduced our purchases. Indeed, I can think of many occasions when we have been criticised for not buying more. Canned salmon is only one example. There have been many others. Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman had then, or has now, any suggestion to make about the items which could be further cut we should, of course, always be very glad to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Fort: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been possible to sell more steel and heavy machinery to Canada instead of shipping it to the Iron Curtain countries?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman should not come forward with these remarks about Anglo-Canadian trade until, at least, he has spent a little time reading the account of the Debate on Anglo-Canadian trade which we had in this House a few weeks ago. Then he would see that that view which has been put forward, and which still keeps coming up regularly, was completely demolished, and that no hon. Gentleman opposite attempted to reply to the argument then. The hon. Gentleman knows, or he should know, that the amount of steel which has been shipped beyond the Iron Curtain would have made practically no difference at all to the supply of timber which we could have got from Canada. He knows also that it has not in any way affected the supply of machinery to Canada. Really, the hon. Gentleman should not try to bring that into the Debate.

Mr. Fort: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a letter forwarded to me from the agent of a supplier of paper accessories to Canada? This letter is from the Canadian agent of this company reporting to England. It says that they have been unable to get orders in the last year, because the Canadian paper manufacturers will not place orders in this country when we will not buy paper from them.

Mr. Wilson: Now the bon. Gentleman is making an entirely different argument. A few moments ago he was saying that we would have bought the timber if we had not supplied machinery and steel elsewhere. Having been pushed off that argument, he comes to an entirely different point and says that paper manufacturers will not buy our machinery because we have not been buying their paper. I should be sorry to believe that the hon. Gentleman's account of the attitude of the Canadian paper manufacturers is correct. I am sure that they realise, as those whom I met last year in Canada realised, that our inability to buy more from them is the result of our dollar situation, and that the more we can do to increase our exports to Canada, the more we shall be able to buy from them. That has already been seen in the results of our increased purchases of certain Canadian products in the past few weeks. Really, I do not think that suggestions of that kind will help us forward at all.

Mr. Fort: rose—

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I cannot continue to give way while he brings up one red herring after another, only to fail to carry us forward in this Debate.
It has been suggested, though not very much this evening, that the newspapers were misled by the Government, in certain questions affecting the supplies of newsprint which would be available to them. First, there was the question of imports from soft currency sources. I think that I have dealt with that. But the suggestion has also been made on a number of occasions in the document circulated recently in the Press, that the Government misled the Newsprint Supply Company on the question of exports. Of course, they knew on 16th January, long before the decision to maintain the seven-page newspaper, that exports would be at least 95,000 tons. In fact, when they took their decision on 4th April there was no ceiling on exports, and they had been told, as one hon. Gentleman said in his quotation from the letter he had received, that exports would have priority. In fact, on 25th April, in order to help to maintain supplies, we did agree to limit exports to this figure of 100,000 tons this year.
It has also been suggested that we misled them on supplies from the home mills. There was definitely here, I agree, an over-estimate—

Mr. Butler: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves exports, will he give some answers to the questions about remedies which I put to him?

Mr. Wilson: I will come to the point about exports later.

Sir I. Fraser: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? How much of the exports are subject to contracts, both last year and in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Wilson: I have informed the hon. Gentleman that, so far as this year is concerned, something between 98,000 and 99,000 tons out of 100,000 tons are subject to contract. So far as next year is concerned, 71,000 tons are subject to contract covering the same period. That is what I have been informed after consultation with the mills, and I give the hon. Gentleman that information.
With regard to production from the home mills, there was an over-estimate of production of between 5,000 and 6,000 tons on a total production of 560,000 tons. That is an error of about 1 per cent., but in so far as this over-estimate is concerned, it was corrected within a day or two before there was time for it to have affected the position about the maintenance of the seven-page newspapers. The plain fact is that, although pulp was available, the machines, in fact, were not. I do not think the newspapers would claim that they were surprised by the sudden reversion of periodicals to freedom, because, of course, that was announced some time before Christmas.
With regard to the immediate situation, and what the Government can do to help. In the first place, we are always prepared to license any quantity of imports for soft currency. Indeed, we have authorised dollars for the maximum amount of imports which the Newsprint Supply Company think could be made available to them, including any under existing contracts and three times this year we have advanced the position in regard to dollars in response to surveys of the situation by the Newsprint Supply Company of their prospective requirements and prospective

supplies. First, we agreed to 25,000 tons for the second half of this year; then, when they said it was quite impossible to get this without something being done for the first half of next year, we agreed to that; and, when they found, somewhat to their disappointment, although they had forecast it, that they could not get supplies unless something was done for the second half of next year, that announcement was made last week.

Mr. Bishop: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to correct that. It is quite untrue that this series of applications, step by step, was made. We have never ceased to press for our contracts to be honoured, and, when I came back from Canada at the beginning of June, the application was made in writing to the Board of Trade on 15th June, pressing strongly to import the whole of the amount we asked for in 1951.

Mr. Wilson: I have never sought to deny that, and I have had a further look at these letters only today. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the expert on machinery supplies and steel supplies is also an expert on the negotiations between the Newsprint Supply Company and the Government.
I was going on to say that the hon. Gentleman is quite right, and that on a number of occasions they pressed the desirability and indeed the importance of maintaining the continuity of these contracts for as long ahead as possible, and certainly up to the end of 1951. I certainly agree with that statement, altough the maintenance of six-page newspapers was a topic of further discussion about the supply of dollars. The first time it was put to me I agreed that the maintenance of six-page newspapers was dependent on supplies of dollars for the second half of 1950, and, though that meeting took place on 10th July, it was on the 20th July that I announced that these dollars had been made available.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the position about home production and the development programmes in the newsprint mills. As a result of what has been going on there, we expect to see another 100,000 tons of production beginning in 1952. We are certainly prepared to consider further increases if the mills concerned put forward proposals. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty


there has been about financial expansions in capital investment. In fact, his own party has joined with the leaders of mine in stressing the need for a reduction in capital investment at various times. However, there should be this increased capacity in 1952, though I agree that is not much value to us in our immediate situation, in 1950. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about materials.
A good deal has been said in the past few weeks about dollar newsprint. Perhaps I should say a word about what the Government have done in the last few months to ensure that home production of newsprint shall be maintained at full capacity. We have released dollars for the importation of 20,000 tons of mechanical pulp and 35,000 fathoms of pulp-wood for just this purpose, as well as authorising dollars for 50,000 tons of sulphite pulp, all of it for newsprint. I hope that will reassure the right hon. Gentleman because the dollars authorised are sufficient to maintain the mills in this country in absolutely full production.
The other remaining point, I think, is the question of the level of exports. As the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said, it is very easy to suggest that there should be a reduction in the present level of exports, but, of course, I think hon. Members opposite realise what the results would be. Practically the whole of the exports are going to Commonwealth countries, and. in the ordinary way, this would be dollar saving to the Commonwealth and sterling area as a whole.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central stressed the additional difficulties which our own newsprint importers would have to face if the Australians cut down their supplies from this country and attempted to buy greater quantities from Scandinavia at the prices to which he referred. Of course, we have to think particularly of the Colonial requirements of newsprint as well as of the requirements of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, because we have a very special responsibility—I put it to the House in all seriousness—for ensuring that the newspapers in the Colonies are fully maintained. I do not need to stress, because I have mentioned it before, the importance of maintaining the position of our newsprint mills whose long-term interests are very much bound up with certain export

markets, particularly supplies to the Australian market. Nor can we forget the contribution which these exports are making to our balance of trade, especially with Australia.
We have been considering very carefully the position of exports for next year. We are under strong pressure from Australia, South Africa, and from a number of other countries, and we have received representations on the very highest level from those countries that we should increase the level of exports above the present figure. The suggestion has been made by South Africa that if we send a further 16,000 tons they will provide the dollars with which to buy the pulp, and so on. But we have decided to put the ceiling for next year at the same figure as for 1950, and exports will not be licensed for a higher figure in 1951 than they have been in 1950.
To sum up, the present position is that the newspapers on present estimates will have received enough during 1950 to have a permitted allocation of six pages throughout the year, plus the General Election addition. If they are now able to obtain all the imports, including Canadian imports now authorised by the Government, together with those which we and they hope they will get from Europe, they should be able to avoid any further cut and to maintain six pages until the end of 1951. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked us to look further ahead. I entirely agree with him, and with the point put by a number of hon. Members that in the matter of newsprint supplies one cannot go on the basis of buying job lots. It would be impossible—and I think the House would recognise the impossibility—for me to make any commitments on behalf of the Government to provide dollars for two or three years ahead so far as that is concerned, because we have to think of the dollar situation. But I can say to the House that the Government do regard the continued importation of newsprint from Canada as one of the most important of our imports and one we are most keen to maintain.
We want that, in the interest of Anglo-Canadian trade just as much as in the interest of maintaining supplies to the newspapers. While I cannot give an absolute guarantee—in the event of a further sharp deterioration in our dollar


position that hope could not be maintained—it will be the intention of the Government to maintain these purchases for as long a period ahead as possible. I agree that a six page newspaper is not a very bright prospect, and I should like to see eight pages; but if the trade can get the quantities authorised from Canada there should be no need for any further cut.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central, taking perhaps a realistic view of the situation, referred to the possibility of tonnage rationing. I agree with him that it would be a very serious thing if that were to happen. He asked us not to interfere with the newsprint rationing committee, and I hope that if tonnage rationing does have to be introduced special consideration will be given to the position of the weekly provincial papers.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden stressed their importance. I think they are important, not only for the reasons given, but also because they are an essential part of the economic life, as well as the social life of those areas, because, without their advertisement columns, a good deal of the necessary rural trade could not be continued. It will certainly be the case that, on newsprint grounds, there will be no need to impose a tonnage rationing cut on provincial weeklies. If a 10 per cent. cut were applied, that would save only 3,000 tons in the next five months, and on newsprint grounds I do not think anyone would say that that was necessary. If it were done it would only be to satisfy the canons of equality of misery. It is agreed that we should all like to see larger newspapers, but I must contradict the extravagant line taken by some commentators that we are the worst informed newspaper reading public in the world.
I have already told the House that, although many countries have larger newspapers, we have more newspapers per head than any other country in the world. We have 570 whereas the United States, the fifth in the list, has only 357. In terms of what is the real test, if statistics of newsprint can be any gauge of the extent of information given to the public, as I have already informed the House—and the figures were

borne out by statistics published by U.N.E.S.C.O. the morning after our last Debate—we stand very high in the list, although, of course, we are a considerable way below the United States. The United States have a consumption, in kilograms per head per annum, of about 35. Canada has a consumption of just over 20; Sweden, another country producing newsprint, 16.

Mr. Hurd: So do we.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman should not carry that point too far.
Sweden, producing newsprint for all its requirements and all its exports as well, consumed 16, Australia 16, New Zealand 13, Hawaii—which always amuses the House—13, Switzerland 13, the United Kingdom 12, and some 50 or 60 other countries had lower figures. It would be wrong to give the impression that we are the worst supplied country in the world as far as newsprint is concerned. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter), who has worked so long for the "Express" newspapers that he can present the facts as he likes, says that we are one of the worst, when, in fact, we are among the 12 highest of some 70 or 80 countries.

Mr. Bishop: We used to be first.

Mr. Wilson: We would still be first if it were not for the dollar situation arising out of the war. Hon. Members opposite must take account of that. When I hear remarks of the kind with which we are treated from hon. Members opposite, I must tell them to face up to the responsibility of our dollar situation. It is no good saying that we ought to grant more dollars for newsprint unless they or some of them are willing to say what dollar imports should be cut, or at least make some suggestion, which we have never had from them, of how our dollar earnings can be increased.
I have attempted to explain the situation as the Government understand it, and I have given the House a full review of the prospects as far as we can see them in the period ahead. I have answered fully all that was put to me with respect to dollar allocations for this year and next year. I should like to close by saying that we regard the supply of newsprint to the papers as a very high priority indeed in the imports to this country, and our dollar


purchasing programme as far as we are able to control it will reflect the very high priority which we give to it.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Donald Scott: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not immediately follow him in some of the arguments which he has been putting forward. I am very glad that I have had the opportunity of speaking in this Debate if for no other reason than that it will enable me to answer a rather extraordinary statement made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). I am glad to see that he is still in his place. He paid a tribute to the local newspapers published in Carlisle—both the Liberal and the Conservative papers—but if I understood him aright—I hope I did; I will give way to him if I did misunderstand him—he went on to say that the Conservative paper was owned by the Conservative Association. That statement is entirely incorrect, and I can only say that the hon. Member for Carlisle has been entirely misinformed.

Mr. Hargreaves: If the hon. Member will look at the imprimatur on the last page of the "Cumberland Evening News" he will notice that the statement I made was correct.

Mr. Scott: It is quite true that a number of people who are financially interested in the "Cumberland Times"—I mean "The Cumberland Evening News"—are Conservatives, but it surely is not possible to argue—

Mr. Hargreaves: Would the hon. Gentleman mind giving way again? I have made a statement, and I have repeated it. The newspaper to which I have referred bears the words which I have said it bears. The owner and printer is the Association to which I have referred. That does not permit of any argument.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Member and I must get together, and we must look at this. If he is right and I am wrong, I shall be only to pleased to apologise to him publicly.
We heard a great deal at the beginning of this Debate about the importance of the weekly provincial newspaper and the great part that it has to fulfil in our national life. I do not apologise for coming back to that subject, particularly as the President of the Board of Trade

spent only two or three moments in dealing with this most important subject. I do not know how many newspapers of that type there may be in the British Isles, but I do know that wherever one goes within these islands one finds a local newspaper. It may have a big or a small circulation. It may or it may not be politically minded. It may be an excellent paper or it may be an indifferent paper.
But all these papers have one thing in common, if they are any good at all—they are very deeply beloved by their readers. As more than one hon. Gentleman has said tonight, their readers look forward every week to the delivery of that paper. The paper is beloved by its readers for one reason—because that type of paper gives news which cannot be read anywhere else. These papers give a picture of the flow and the way of English life—births, deaths, marriages, social activities, sporting activities; indeed, everything, one might say, from a Girl Guides' rally to the proceedings of the local council and the local council rows.
The point has been dealt with already, but I do not think sufficient emphasis has been placed on the commercial importance of these papers. Not only do they carry the agricultural advertisements but, at the same time, they give the agricultural intelligence which the fanner must have. They tell the farmer what happened at the local sheep sale last week, at the local store cattle sale or at the local pig sale. They tell him the state of the local corn market. Gone are the days when the farmer had time to go to one market on one day and another market on the next day—to go all round the countryside. Today, he has to stick to his job at home and the local paper is the only way in which he can keep in touch with his market intelligence. The local paper is the medium through which the farm worker finds a vacancy and through which the farmer is able to fill a vacancy which occurs on his staff. There again, gone are the days of the hiring fairs at which employer and employee met.
If those two functions, the social and the commercial functions, are to continue, I suggest, as many hon. Members have suggested tonight, that preference must be given to a solution of this problem of the 3d. provincial weekly paper. If I had


a little more time—and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak tonight—I should have developed the argument that these papers not only fulfil those two great functions and duties but act as a wonderful link between a district and those who have left it for one cause and another, particularly those who have gone to live abroad. They keep alive the local patriotism which is very valuable.
Finally, I do not think enough has been said about the fact that it is the provincial weekly Press which is the nursery, or the preparatory school if hon. Members prefer it, of that journalism which has made the British Press famous, envied, and I think beloved throughout the world.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I shall not be expected to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Scott) in relating his own knowledge of his own newspaper in his own district, but I am certain that if he is correctly reported in his local newspaper, he will find he has made some mistakes. In the first place, it is not the "Cumberland Times" but the "Cumberland News"—

Mr. Scott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way a moment? I made that stupid mistake, but it was a slip of the tongue and I corrected it at once.

Mr. Jones: I was interested in trying to keep the hon. Gentleman absolutely correct in his effort to keep himself right with his local newspaper, in which he has a particular interest.
I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) who opened the Debate. I thought his was a well-reasoned, well-thought-out, non-partisan speech of the type which we should hear more often. We heard very little of that type of speech earlier today. I think, too, we should congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for the reasoned reply, full of information, which he has given to the House.
I want to declare my interest in this matter. I am interested because I want the people of this country to have the opportunity to be as fully and correctly informed as possible. I could make a

long speech about what I think of the use made of newsprint. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), Leader of the Liberal Party, complained bitterly that brilliant articles written by budding journalists and writers never appeared in the Press. While there are thousands of square yards of space wasted every week in headlines in the daily newspapers which are directed against the Government, room will not be found for the type of article to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The hon. Member for South-gate (Mr. Baxter) shakes his head. If he will look at the newspapers tomorrow morning and apply the rule—not the slide rule, but the ordinary rule used at school—and measure out the amount of space given to headlines, and multiply it by the millions of newspapers published each morning, and then find the aggregate amount of space so used, he will find I am completely correct.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I shook my head because the hon. Gentleman said that the headlines attacking the Government were a waste of space, and I do not think they are, because they give hope.

Mr. Jones: I am completely satisfied that they are a waste, judged by the votes cast by the people who look at the headlines. One can judge only from results.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), in one of his rather naive suggestions, said that more machinery should have been sent to Canada instead of being sent behind the Iron Curtain. He suggested that we should use steel in that way—steel, of which I know a little: just a little—sending it to Canada to enable further imports to be obtained. I would remind the hon. Member that unless we sent machinery of the type we have sent behind the Iron Curtain, and to Russia in particular, such things as grain and wheat, out of which our bread is made, would not be forthcoming from there. Further, timber to build houses has to be obtained by the usual arrangements—business arrangements—made between the nation which can supply and the nation which can pay in goods for such commodities.
Personally, I want to see additional newsprint made available. I believe the Government have made every effort to


obtain it. The evidence is in being. We have had proof positive on three distinct occasions this year that the President has made it possible to have more dollars available for more newsprint. I am a little worried about the type of speeches we hear from the Opposition benches. I am ready to admit that we have heard speeches tonight full of the real desire to help constituents, but we have also heard other speeches about which I feel dubious. There were speeches which seemed to be more concerned that newsprint should be available out of which profits could be made, rather than that there should be newsprint available—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree. I am glad they refute that suggestion. I shall be happy to look into it and satisfy myself that on this occasion they are right, because I believe there is a genuine desire, generally speaking, throughout the country for our people to be more fully informed.
I want to reinforce the plea made on behalf of the provincial newspapers. The editor of my particular weekly newspaper happens to be one of the four Independent members—the rest being Labour members—of the town council, and it will not, therefore, be supposed that he is a great political friend of mine. I am satisfied with this, that the more space is made available for the opponents of Socialism to state their case, the better we Socialists will like it. It sounds a bit Irish, but there it is. The more opportunity and space given to the people who do not like our particular philosophy and policy to expound their ideas, the better it suits us, who, all too often, have our views distorted.
If there is an additional allocation of newsprint in this country the provincial newspapers ought to get it. I, like other hon. Members on either side of the House, agree that the local newspapers—what I would call "the family chronicle"—is the one from which we learn of the local weddings, deaths, the pensioners' celebration, the cricket match, the bazaar, the allotments society show, the council's debates and who has grown the biggest marrow. It is the local newspapers that carry on our heritage and express our interest in the things of our daily lives.
I ask the Minister to make certain, through his good offices, that when additional newsprint is made available it is not directed to where it can be used for scare headlines, such as I have indicated, but is so directed that we can get a reasonable account of local and national events which interest local inhabitants. A well-informed highly enlightened public will respond better, and will thereby create a spirit throughout the country which will enable us in our workshops to earn extra dollars, and thus to make even more newsprint available.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Because so many other hon. Members want to speak, I shall be very brief indeed. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), to whose opinions we always listen with great interest, more for his experience than his deductions, made one or two errors. I understood him to say that some newspapers were looking forward to using extra newsprint for making extra profit.

Mr. Jack Jones: No. What I said was that those people interested in extra newsprint were concerned about the sale of such newsprint, not newspapers.

Mr. Baxter: I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I would just say that no newspaper group has fought harder for extra newsprint than the "Daily Express" group; they have given a great deal of space to it, and fought very hard. But if they were cut down to two pages—and I say this as a shareholder—their profits would be increased by £1 million a year. They are really more anxious to have space for news than for making money. Newspapers have long passed from being purely money-making concerns, and it would be very unwise for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say anything against that point of view, because I am right in what I say.
We listened tonight with great sympathy to the President of the Board of Trade, because he intended to do well but could not do well because the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not find the dollars. I sincerely believe that the President of the Board of Trade is anxious to maintain as much Anglo-Canadian trade as possible. I shall not repeat the joke I made last time we


discussed this. I believe he is anxious. But after all, what can Canada think when the responsible Minister writes to the Newsprint Supply Company and puts a letter into Lord Layton's pocket to go to Canada authorised by His Majesty's Government to contract for 300,000 tons each year for 1949, 1950 and 1951?
They must assume that the responsible Ministers, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must have foreseen, within reason, their difficulties, and the Canadians thereupon enter into a contract which they would honour, no matter at what cost. I say this with some knowledge of the Canadian industry. If they had been offered a much bigger price they would have said, "We are contracted to Britain." But what have His Majesty's Government said? "Because of the difficulties that have come upon us we cannot carry it through," and Lord Layton is unable to carry on with the three-year contract.
The other night in an Adjournment Debate I said something about wondering why we were continuing to export to Australia at such a level, and the President of the Board of Trade at once paid me the compliment, and the rebuke, of saying that I was a great champion of Empire trade. I do not think that is a bad thing; but I would point out that while exports to Australia are important to Empire trade, so are imports from Canada, and Canada has been bedevilled over and over again by the policy of this Government.
I know the difficulties, but let us make no mistake about it. The Government urged the Canadians to grow apples, and eventually they had to tear up tens of thousands of apple trees which they grew in response to the Lord President's appeal. That was a terrible moment, when men had sown the seed and seen the fruit grow, and then had to tear it up. Believe me, it is no laughing matter. It is a very serious thing.
I should like to pass on to one or two other points. It is very difficult to believe that the attitude of this Government towards the Press is not to some extent malignant. It is very difficult, being as fair as possible, not to believe that. I can understand that, although I have never held office—because one must

have some imagination in politics—when a Government has to wake up every morning and read that the majority of newspapers are hostile to it. I can understand that in comparison with the theatre. People put on a play and the critics on the first night say that the play is very bad and Mrs. Smith is terrible. After that the critics disappear. If every night the critics said, with the accuracy which one attributes entirely to critics, "This show is worse than we first thought," I can understand the annoyance to the actors. They would wish the critics would disappear from this earth.
I can, therefore, readily understand these persecuted men, this Socialist Government, as they talk at some seaside resort—because they always go to the sea to blow the cobwebs out of their brains—saying, "This is terrible"; and certainly the way in which the Lord President inspired his stooges to work their way up for a Royal Commission on the Press was a contemptible thing, and it is very hard, when we put all these things together, not to feel that the Government has a malignant approach to the problems of the Press.

Mr. Wilson: I would not like that to go out from this House without being answered. I have said on a number of occasions—and I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept this—that the question of how newspapers use the newsprint which we are able to make available is entirely a matter for them. We may have our views about it—I have very strong views about it—but that does not in the least affect the newsprint programme or the whole question of our doing everything in our power to get enough newsprint, not only to report the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but our point of view as well. I like to see that done.

Mr. Baxter: If the President of the Board of Trade feels that way, perhaps he would say whether he was or was not in favour of the Royal Commission inquiry into the sins of the Press, because that is what it was about.
It is all very well for him now to show this amiability, which we must appreciate, but it seems that this amiability developed after the Commission had completely thrown down the charges and "insinuendoes" that had been made.


That is a well-known Americanism and is like the Chancellor of the Exchequer's method of speech which so often telescopes two words into one.
May I speak to the President of the Board of Trade very seriously for one moment on this very important point? When newspapers are cut down in size, it not only produces unemployment, which is understandable, but it creates non-employment which is more subtle and in some ways more sinister. Unemployment means that they cannot carry the staff which they would like to employ. That is understandable. They do their best and often keep men on although they cannot employ them usefully, but they have to dismiss a certain number. Non-employment means that there is no space for talented young men or young women who have some right to look forward to a journalistic career. That is why the newspapers adhere to the older established writers, because they have not the room to manœuvre and to experiment. I say to the President of the Board of Trade that is a serious thing, the non-employment of talent which the smaller papers force upon the journalistic world.
The President has said that the Government are not critical of how the newspapers use their supplies, but an hon. Gentleman opposite was critical. He objected to the headlines which said that this is a terrible Government.

Mr. Jack Jones: rose—

Mr. Baxter: I cannot give way because my time is limited. I agree that many newspapers do not use their supplies to the best effect. I think that much appears in the newspapers which is trivial and some which is pornographic, but the newspapers themselves must be the judges of that.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The public.

Mr. Baxter: The public create the demand which some newspaper meets. I sometimes wonder if politicians realise what a newspaper is in the life of the people. It is a companion which searches out the lonely home and often is the companion of many hours. It is a companion on the train. To politicians, who complain, and who believe that newspapers should consist almost entirely of reports of the Debates in the House of

Commons, I say that would be a cruelty. There never was a politician yet who saw his speech properly reported in the newspapers, and sometimes I think those celestial angels in the gallery above us, the newspaper reporters are kind in not reporting hon. Members exactly as they speak.
But the newspaper is not only intended to carry the news of the outside world, the news of the day. It also has an entertainment value in the life of the people. That is why the crossword puzzle has its place. There are also not only the results of sporting events, but the element of conjecture before, for example, a fight like that between Bruce Woodcock and the American, and the interesting statement by Bruce Woodcock that he would kill the American. There are book reviews, there are fashions. There are, in more enlightened newspapers, dramatic criticisms.
Therefore I would ask the President before he takes a harsh view, to realise that while newspapers should be criticised by each other, while critics should be criticised, while book reviewers should be criticised by authors—I believe newspapers are all too friendly to each other and that they should bicker much more than they do—the popular newspaper is the only thing in this country which is the same price as it was before the war. It is one penny. That is an astonishing thing. And it renders a great service.
So I say to the House with perfect sincerity—oddly enough that point reinforces the point of the President of the Board of Trade—that despite all the cutting down of newsprint and despite all the smallness of the newspapers, this is the best-informed public in the world. Whether that is because they had more space before, I do not know. I say to the House and especially to the party opposite: Drop your feud against the newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It has been a feud. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whatever is said, it has been a feud. The newspapers are the Fourth Estate, not traditionally, but established eventually as the Fourth Estate, and it is a mean and sinister thing for this honourable House to set up a commission to inquiry into something which, by its very nature, must be free and untrammeled to express views and to guide the public.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. John Rodgers: I do not wish to detain the House very long, but I should like to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in one of his suggestions which has not been taken up by the President of the Board of Trade. A few days ago someone questioned the President as to whether he had had conversations with Mr. Menzies on the subject of the export of newsprint from this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had and, I thought somewhat gloatingly, if I may use that adjective without offence, that not only had be had conversations but that Mr. Menzies had pressed him to increase the exports front this country.
I have every admiration for Mr. Menzies for wishing to give the Australian people the biggest newspapers they can have. I equally think that it is the duty of our Cabinet Ministers, and particularly the President of the Board of Trade, to see that we have the largest newspapers that we can have, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has failed in that duty.
Today, Australia has newspapers which are back to the pre-war size of 18–20 pages, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, whereas we have a six-page paper only. The thing which has really terrified me during the whole Session, and particularly during this Debate, has been the apparent complacency of the Front Bench opposite that a six-page paper is quite adequate for the British people. It is not adequate, particularly in the situation in which we find ourselves today.
I urge the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the export of newsprint from this country to the Empire countries. No question of dollar saving is involved. It is the same dollar expenditure whether Australia has more newsprint or whether we have a wealth of it, and I understand that next year the intention is to export even more newsprint from this country. I urge the President of the Board of Trade—

Mr. Wilson: I made it clear—perhaps the hon. Member did not catch it—that we are putting a ceiling on exports next year at the same figure as the exports for this year. It might save the hon. Gentleman time if I said—I am sorry I forgot to reply to the point which was raised by the right

hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler)—that I have already suggested to some of our friends in the Commonwealth that we should get together to review the whole question of newsprint supplies and how we can help one another on that.

Mr. Rodgers: I am delighted with that declaration. I do not wish to detain the House any more, because that is exactly what I hoped the right hon. Gentleman would promise us.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) dropped the usual pretence of the apologists of the newspapers that we should spend more dollars and give them more newsprint so that they may proceed wtih their work of enlightening the public. There is a certain charming candour about the hon. Member. He said in effect, "Let us spend more dollars so that the newspapers may amuse their readers with prognostications of big fights and with crossword puzzles." That is a little more straightforward, and I like it. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Southgate cannot forget that Royal Commission. He knows that we on this side quote on the platform from that Royal Commission's report describing how certain Sunday papers, especially the "Sunday Express," wilfully and deliberately misrepresented, among other things, the Coal Board. That, of course, gave us valuable stuff, which we do not fail to use.
I wish the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) were in his place, because I took down certain phrases he used—massive, ponderous words, very dangerous to anybody in this House who has not had a really sound course of semantics. He said, for example, that newspapers, among other things, were responsible for creating a public understanding in world affairs. That has been answered by the hon. Member for Southgate, with his admirable piece about the crossword puzzles and the Bruce Woodcock prognostications.
The hon. Member for Stretford then went on to refer to what he described as the service to the public which the Press has a duty to render. That reminded me of what happened once in my early career as a journalist. I worked on a Sunday paper, and on one of the office walls was


a very large photograph which showed an ordinary London suburban woman who might have been 60 years of age. The background was a semi-detached suburban house of the three-bedroom type, the sort which constitutes so much of the constituencies of the hon. Members for Croydon, North (Mr. Frederic Harris) and Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith), whom I am glad to see in their places. That woman was ill-dressed, she had no sartorial taste at all, and her face disclosed that she was an irresolute, ineffective kind of person who was quite incapable of making up her own mind about anything.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is the hon. Member saying that my constituents are ineffective people?

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member will permit me to go on he will gather that this lady, whose picture took up nearly the whole of one side of the sub-editors' room of this Sunday paper, was ineffectual, characterless, had no taste in dress or in doing her hair or anything else, and was obviously quite incapable of making up her mind. But, underneath, in very large letters, for our benefit when we were producing the following day's paper, were the words:
Remember, sub-editors, you are writing for her.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Member will forgive me for reminding him that that very capable woman voted Tory last time.

Mr. Smith: That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) said. Of course, the millionaire newspaper owners are not concerned with profits; it is power they want, power to put the representative of Croydon, North (Mr. Frederick Harris) in the party opposite. It was my job to have before me masses of reports from police courts and select the tastiest and most suggestive cases on the principle that our readers were more interested in sex and crime than anything else. The editor once came to me and said, "Smith, I like your work. You have a fine style, because you use very few long words. Perhaps you don't know that most of our million and a half readers can read, but that is all." That is the attitude of important newspapers towards their readers. I contrast that with the remarks

of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) about the service to the public which it is the newspapers duty to render.
There have been some very curious assumptions behind some of the arguments in this Debate, the most curious of which ran through the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop), who seems to think that every publication is good for the country and that the bigger it is the better. I once worked for a New York evening paper, the Saturday edition of which then had no fewer than 150 pages. I wonder whether the hon. Member would say that as the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle," was that much bigger than the London "Evening News," therefore the American public were that much more enlightened than the London public. If that was not his argument, then his argument had no meaning at all.
I rejoiced in the prominence given by hon. Members to the importance of the local newspapers—county newspapers and weekly newspapers and, I would add, some of the provincial dailies. The advantage of those papers is that their proprietors, their editors and members of their staffs are known personally to the folk among whom they move and with whose activities they deal. I was disappointed with my right hon. Friend's speech in that one respect, as I was hoping he would say that the Government were to change their newsprint policy to something more selective at the expense of big national dailies and Sunday newspapers.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: This Debate is concerned, not with newspapers, but with newsprint. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey), in an extremely admirable speech, called attention to the likelihood of a continuing shortage of raw materials and appealed to the Government and the House to consider alternative raw materials, particularly bagasse, which has been used to a great extent in the United States and could be procured from the West Indies.
I was disappointed to hear the President of the Board of Trade begin with a rather sneering reference to my hon. Friend on the ground that he was putting forward a long-term proposal and what we were concerned with was the immediate need and machine capacity rather than a shortage of raw materials. But,


later in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman patted himself on the back by promising us that there would be increased machine capacity in 1952. I cannot see, if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to look forward to 1952, why my hon. Friend should not be allowed to look forward to 1952.
The right hon. Gentleman demonstrated in his speech that this is a problem which cannot be cured by wave of the wand. It is a problem which is likely to be with us for a long time—a general shortage of raw materials. Therefore, there are few things more urgent than that attention should be paid to the development of alternative sources of raw materials for paper. Accordingly, my hon. Friend made a valuable and constructive suggestion, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not pay more attention to it.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Richards: It was not my intention to intervene in this Debate, but I have heard so many speeches dealing with local newspapers that I felt it my duty to refer to at least some of these. I am glad to find that there is always a unanimous opinion in the House in favour of supporting the local newspapers as far as we possibly can. I do not think that the very powerful daily papers are likely to suffer in any way as they have control over a great amount of capital and control a great amount of income which they derive from advertisements, etc. The local newspaper is in an entirely different category. As everyone who has spoken tonight has pointed out, the local newspaper enters in a very special way into the life of the communities which it serves.
I happen to live quite near the border between England and Wales, and I can see how the newspapers are attempting, in many cases very successfully, to serve both communities—the English community on the one side of the border and the Welsh community on the other. They are doing a great deal to keep alive Welsh traditions by their interest in the Welsh point of view. It would be a great disaster if some of these papers ceased to function. From that point of view I am particularly interested in the future development of these local papers.
I should like also to make a plea for the vernacular Welsh papers. Many of them are very small and very poor, but they have one feature which is quite distinctive, namely, that they always attempt to give an opportunity for literary people to write in Welsh in their columns. They are very small papers, and I often wonder how they manage to carry on. It would be a disaster—I say that deliberately—to Welsh life if those papers were to cease functioning. I hope that when he comes to make his allocation, the President of the Board of Trade will not forget the claims that can be made on behalf of those Welsh papers that are struggling hard in the modern world to present a distinctive point of view.
My concern is for those two types of papers, the weekly papers on the border, most of them English, naturally enough, in their point of view but often associated with the Welsh point of view; and, in the heart of Wales, in many localities, Welsh papers which publish only Welsh news and Welsh articles, and which are a vital part of the life of the Principality. I hope that from that point of view, the President will not forget his duty of attempting to give those people the newsprint they require in order to carry on their work.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(ALIMONY IN CASE OF JUDICIAL SEPARATION.)

10.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should like to put a question to the Minister in charge of the Bill at the moment. This Clause, I take it, imparts to the Statute Book what was previously—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is only a consolidation Measure, and no questions can be asked about the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am asking whether the effect of this Clause is to impart to the Statute Book—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is just what we cannot discuss.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Surely at some stage of this Bill we can discuss the importance of these proposals?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is what we cannot do. It is only a consolidation Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am asking as a question of fact whether this Clause gives effect to one of the minor corrections, to which reference was made in the Memorandum.

The Deputy-Chairman: The only possibility is to vote against the Clause. There can be no discussion of its contents.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The point I should like to submit is that the Report of the Joint Committee, which dealt with the Bill, points out that the Committee were of opinion that the Bill consolidated the existing law with such corrections and improvements as could properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. The question I am seeking to put is: Does Clause 20 consolidate the existing law, or does it incorporate such correction and improvements as have been authorised and recommended by the Joint Committee of both Houses.

The Deputy-Chairman: These are minor corrections and they cannot be discussed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am not asking that they should, but what I am asking is whether it is consolidation of the law or whether it includes the corrections and improvements authorised within the meaning of the terms of reference of the Joint Committee.

Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. As the Bill is admittedly making certain changes in the law of the land, surely this House on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading, in accordance with the assurances which the Attorney-General gave when this Bill was passed, will have an opportunity of considering the Amendments that are proposed.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. Hon. Members do not have an opportunity of doing that at any stage under the Act.

Clauses 21 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I desire to address a few remarks to the House against the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, the only point the hon. Member can raise is whether or not the Bill shall be consolidated. Nothing else can be discussed. Anything else is out of order. I rule it out of order straight away, and will allow no further discussion on anything except that one point.

Mr. Fletcher: I assume from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, for which, of course, I have the greatest respect, that one can adduce arguments against the Motion that this Bill be given a Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Without discussing anything that is in the Bill—which is rather difficult.

Mr. Fletcher: I shall do my best to address arguments to the House why, in my view, this Bill should not be passed as a consolidation Bill and, in deference to your Ruling Sir, I will endeavour, without indicating what are the changes of the law—

Mr. Speaker: The changes cannot be discussed. They have been certified, both by the Lord Chancellor and myself, as being minor amendments in accordance with the Consolidation Act. Therefore, they cannot be discussed.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that, but I understand that it is the prerogative of this House, before any changes in the law of the land are made, whether in a Consolidation Bill or any other Bill, to address arguments to show why the Bill should not be consolidated.

Mr. Speaker: No. That was exactly the reason why we passed this procedure amending the old consolidation procedure. Amendments and changes of a minor character can be allowed and are not debatable if I have certified them and if the Lord Chancellor has certified them. Therefore, there can be no Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that Sir. I do not for one moment wish to challenge your Ruling and the certificate which you have given that amendments in the law should be made and consolidated in this Bill, but I assume that I am entitled to address arguments to the House in support of the proposition that this Bill should not be consolidated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss my Ruling. I have given a Ruling, and that is final.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Is it not the position that under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, it is out of order to discuss anything contained in this Bill, and that the only matter for discussion can be consolidation or no consolidation. On the Motion for Third Reading, the only speech which my hon. Friend could make would be one in favour of the proposition that, in the circumstances, the law embraced in this Bill should not be consolidated.

Mr. Speaker: That does not mean discussing the law.

The Lord Advocate: No, Mr. Speaker—that the law which is embraced in the Bill should not be consolidated but should be left as it was.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is the same point as that which arises on Second Reading, and that is all that can be discussed.

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I propose to address arguments to the House why, in my submission, this Bill should not be given a Third Reading. As this is an entirely novel procedure under the Act of 1949, I apprehend that I am entitled to say why the minor amendments of the law—

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member is only entitled to say that the Bill should

not be consolidated. He cannot give any reasons for that. At least, I cannot think of any reason. He cannot discuss the Bill itself. Therefore, I do not see how he can debate it.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, what I desire to do is to indicate arguments why the law should not be consolidated.

Mr. Speaker: No. I have certified the Bill, and it is a Consolidation Bill. I do not see how any hon. Member can argue it.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, I apprehend that this House is entitled, on this Motion, to decide whether or not the Bill should have a Third Reading. Hitherto, we have had no opportunity in this House of considering the Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: On a Consolidation Bill, one cannot discuss any merits. This is a Consolidation Bill, and one can only say whether we should consolidate or not. I cannot think of any other reason there could be. One could say that we should leave this matter unconsolidated and that it should remain as it was, but that is the only argument of which I can think that might be used.

Mr. Fletcher: The last thing that I would wish to do, Mr. Speaker, would be to challenge, or to appear to challenge, your Ruling. Having regard to what you have just said, I would wish to indicate reasons why, in my opinion, the law on this subject should not be consolidated, and I apprehend that, having regard to your Ruling, I would be in order if I were to indicate to the House why it would be undesirable to consolidate the law on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: Without, of course, discussing any merits, or anything in the Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: I will do my best in deference to your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Is not this really rather childish? I have been authorised to certify a Bill which will pass under the ordinary procedure of consolidation, and this Bill must pass under the ordinary procedure of a Consolidation Bill. The hon. Member wants to say that there must be some extraordinary procedure, but, as this is a Consolidation Bill, it therefore passes by the usual rules of a


Consolidation Bill. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss anything in the Bill; nothing at all in it can be argued, and the only question is whether there should be consolidation or not; that is to say, whether the Bill passes under the 1949 procedure or under the previous procedure. There can be no discussion on Third Reading.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. Does your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, mean that, on a Bill coming before this House either on Second or Third Reading, nothing can be said about the contents of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: One can only object to the consolidation, but, of course, it has been the rule for quite a long period that Consolidation Bills cannot be discussed. This is nothing new, and we are involved in no new principles at all.

Mr. Thomas: If it is revealed later that an error of some kind has crept into this Consolidation Bill—

Mr. Speaker: I can answer that quite well. I have to certify the Bill, which has been to a Joint Select Committee. It started with a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor, and the minor amendments which are made in consolidating the Bill have to be certified by the Lord Chancellor, with all his legal advisers, and then certified by me, with all my legal advisers. Therefore, both he and I have to assure ourselves that nothing but improvements, and minor improvements, have been made and that the law has not been altered in any respect. That is what has been done with this Bill, and, therefore, it consolidates the existing law as it stood before this Bill was introduced.

Mr. Thomas: The House must accept it, then?

Mr. Speaker: The House always has accepted Consolidation Bills before, and this is nothing new. Supposing there should be any error, the responsibility is a joint one between myself and the Lord Chancellor, and we have had pretty good advice.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I desire, on this Motion, to oppose consolidation on the ground, among others, that Clause 18—

Mr. Speaker: One cannot discuss a single Clause. This is really quite ridiculous. One knows perfectly well what the

law is, and any lawyer ought to know it too.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I desire to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. It was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the Second Reading of the Consolidation of Enactments Bill, 1949, by virtue of which this particular consolidation Measure is now before the House, that, and I quote his exact words:
In this matter, as in every matter, Parliament would have complete control and would have the final word in regard to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1367.]
He went on to say that it was the function of this House to decide, first, whether or not consolidation of a particular field of Statute law is desirable, and, second, whether Amendments are minor corrections and improvements. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker—and there is, of course, no appeal against your Ruling—that such Amendments as may be contained in the Bill—I express no opinion on that, because it would be out of order for me to do so—have been certified in accordance with the procedure laid down, and you, Sir, have given your Ruling to that effect. Nevertheless, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General pointed out, there remains in this House the power to decide whether or not consolidation of a particular field of Statute law is desirable or not, and that, Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly the various Rulings you have given, is the only point to which any argument can be adduced—whether or not consolidation of a particular field of Statute law—in this case the Matrimonial Causes Bill—is desirable or not.
If, so far, I am in order, I would like to develop the argument within the narrow confines that you have laid down, Mr. Speaker, and which I and, I hope my hon. Friend, accept. I wish just to say that I do not dispute for one moment that the correct procedure has been followed except for an unfortunate little omission to which you referred in the Ruling which you gave the other night, and which does not invalidate the Bill, but which, nevertheless, did inconvenience hon. Members. The omission was due to the fact to which you referred—

Mr. Speaker: That is not in this Bill and has nothing to do with it at all. Perhaps I might answer the hon. and gallant


Gentleman. He has quoted something which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said. I am bound purely by the Rules of the House concerning Consolidation Bills. Whatever the Attorney-General may have said, it is not my business to take any notice of it at all. I have to obey the Rules of the House and see that nothing is discussed except the one principle, whether or not the law should be consolidated, and whether any arguments relating to any Amendments in the Bill are in order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was just about to say that in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which, if I may say so, you have very clearly re-expressed, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said on Second Reading, which, of course now goes by the board in view of what you have said. That position I accept, and I now approach the more dangerous part of the argument that I wish to submit, and so that there should be no dubiety about it, I say quite clearly that I now approach the tightrope along which it is necessary for me to walk if I am to reach the next stage of my argument.
It has been made quite clear that it is within the right of the House to say whether or not consolidation of a particular field of law is desirable or not. This particular Bill, which I do not query, establishes as you, Sir, have indicated in the course of your Rulings, or as can be implied from your Rulings, an important precedent because it indicates that in the course of consolidation it is possible—and it cannot be challenged—that by following the procedure laid down it is possible to connect up with consolidation some degree of codification which, according to the memorandum submitted by the joint committee, is described as—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now discussing an Act of Parliament which we passed, under which I have acted, and which, therefore we cannot discuss. Might I suggest to hon. Gentlemen who wish to oppose the Third Reading of a Consolidation Bill that it is quite simple. They can vote against it; that will save a lot of time.

Sir Herbert Williams: As an engineer not as a lawyer, I have

always been more than convinced that the more consolidation we have the better. I am a little surprised that two lawyers do not want the law consolidated because—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the principle of consolidation.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: As a lawyer, I should like to welcome these consolidation Measures. I think a very good job has been done. It was a job which required doing. It will be of great help to the legal profession and will give help to the public. I welcome not only this Bill but, if I may say so, also the one we have just passed. [Laughter.] I got that one in, Mr. Speaker; and also I should like to welcome the Bill we are about to pass.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

ADOPTION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

10.24 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I should like to say a word about Clause 30.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): We have passed Clause 30.

Sir W. Darling: I was watching very closely and I understood you had not reached Clause 30.

The Deputy-Chairman: I had already called Clauses 24 to 46.

Sir W. Darling: With respect, Clauses 24 to 46 include Clause 30. Is it in order to make an observation on Clause 30 or is it not?

The Deputy-Chairman: I had gathered the voices.

Remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.26 p.m.

Sir W. Darling: As the House is aware, we are dealing with the Shops Bill, and we are invited to consolidate the law on this subject. I should like to make some observations, putting forward arguments why it is undesirable to consolidate the law.
My reason for putting forward that view is that these Shop Acts ranging from 1912 to 1938, roughly a period of 25 years, have been in operation and have given a large measure of satisfaction. I am engaged in the profession of shop-keeping and have been so engaged over a period of years. I am satisfied—and I think the House will agree—that the public as a whole have been served well by the shops, and these Acts are the guiding principles by which they have been served.
On these grounds, I submit that there is no case for consolidation. Where there is such a case, as there was perhaps in the Adoption Bill, or the Arbitration Bill, there are many circumstances where there are wide varieties of differences of opinion, and I can well understand that there is a case for consolidation. But here there is no such case put forward. At least, I have yet to hear the argument. Here is one of the most important industries in the country—we have been described as a nation of shopkeepers—which, for a quarter of a century, has

conducted its affairs with great satisfaction in times of considerable difficulty. There has been rationing, restriction of supplies, shortage of staff, shortage of light and heat; all these complexities have fallen upon this remarkable industry.

Mr. Speaker: It occurs to me that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the merits of the various Acts which have to be consolidated. He is not discussing whether they should be consolidated or not. He cannot discuss the merits of the Acts which have to be consolidated.

Sir W. Darling: I was not discussing the merits. I had no intention of doing so. I am convinced of the merits, and I do not want to consolidate these Measures. I am advised, from my own experience and by bodies with whom I deal, that they prefer the individuality with which they have conducted their business between 1912 and 1938 to this bound volume which is designed to provide a single compendium of these Measures. They prefer the individual Acts to this attempt to bring them all together. That is an idiosyncracy which perhaps does not meet with the approval of many, but I am opposed to the collectivist principle, and this is a piece of collectivism.
Consolidation is designed to join together two persons or two things which should not be joined together, and Acts which should not be joined together. I am seriously attempting to put forward a case for retaining the separate individuality of these various Acts of Parliament. The fact that they have worked well and have promoted the welfare of the staffs concerned and the interests which they represent is the best and most powerful argument for non-consolidation.
I submit that there is no case for consolidation. True there has been no opportunity for attempting to make out such a case because I have presumed to speak first, but I shall await with interest the case for the justification to consolidate, because I can see no justification for consolidation. The old Acts under which these shopkeepers lived had the merit of being serviceable and useful. Now they have been challenged. All that has happened is that someone desires to put them into one book. I prefer that they should continue their separate existences.

10.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think that what the hon. Member is opposed to is not collectivism, but making a collection. I am bound to tell the House, as this comes within my Department in the main, that the present way of having these requirements spread over a number of Statutes, some of which are only distantly connected with the subject, make it highly desirable that the legislation should be brought into one Measure, particularly as that will make it easier to carry out very necessary amendments which may be required in the near future.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Newmarket, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Irlam, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (TIED HOUSES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Yates: The matter to which I desire to call the attention of the House, and of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in particular, is the widespread anxiety which is being experienced by many families throughout the country who are living in houses under the control of the British Transport Commission and who, for reasons such as bereavement or retirement, reasons beyond their control, find themselves under the shadow of eviction or the threat of eviction. I want to be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who also balloted for the Adjournment with me, will wish to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
This problem is not a new one. In my constituency of Ladywood, Birmingham, before the railways were nationalised, I made a strong appeal to the railway companies not to evict families in the constituency because of the grave housing problem in the City of Birmingham. Unfortunately, a number of families were evicted in the city; but it was my hope and the hope of my hon. Friends, that with the creation of a nationalised industry there would be a better and more moral approach to this problem rather than a legal approach. I can appreciate that railway workers feel disturbed when non-railway workers occupy houses at the expense of those engaged in the industry, but I submit that those who are facing retirement after long service, and the widows of railwaymen, are in rather a special category. It seems to me reprehensible that those who are facing retirement, those who have reached the eventide of life, and also widows, should be subject to the ordeal of facing a court, with the inevitable consequences of eviction.
It is to this aspect of the problem that I wish to call attention tonight. I was very interested to read an article, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), on tied cottages and published in the "Railway Review" of 27th May, 1949. He


referred to a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, who lived in a tied cottage for 30 years but who was evicted to make room for an agricultural worker. My hon. Friend said that "another feature of this pernicious system" was that when a member of the N.U.R., with a long record of faithful service on the line, reached retirement age he faced the same threat of being turned out of what had been his home for many years. Further, he recommended that "all our people throughout the country should give full publicity" to any cases similar to that he had described.
I do not know if my hon. Friend is here, but if so, he will appreciate the case which I am about to raise. It concerns a constituent of mine, a railwayman who entered the employ of the company before the 1914 war, and who gave no less than 41 years of faithful service, without a blemish upon his character; and during a part of that period he served in the 1914–18 war. This man, unfortunately, died on 28th September last year, and on 3rd October, he was buried. The following day, 4th October, a representative of British Railways called upon his widow, who was naturally distressed, and suggested, at that moment, that she would probably have to give up her house.
On 5th October—the very next day, I would emphasise—an official intimation was received by this unfortunate lady. Six months later, a further letter was sent from British Railways, saying:
Referring to my previous letter of 5th October, I have now ascertained that the house you occupy is required for an employee of the Railway Executive and that I am obliged, therefore, to inform you that unless possession is given within two months—that is, on 1st July, 1950—I shall be compelled to instruct the Executive's solicitors to institute court proceedings.
This was told to a widow with three children.
I wrote immediately to the Railway Executive, because I thought that this might be an exceptional case. But I was amazed to receive a letter from the Chief Regional Officer, at Euston, in which he said it was unfortunately similar to many others all over the country, and that the necessity for the action which had to be taken in the instance in which I am interested, was much regretted.
When I learned that there were many similar cases—and since then I have heard much information which confirms that there are other cases—I thought this was a problem of fundamental public importance. Therefore, I thought I was entitled to ask a question. Unfortunately, I could not get it past the Table and I think that this is the only appropriate way in which to raise the matter. This particular widow may, I think, be given an extended period during which time she is expected to get further accommodation, but there is a cloud of mental anguish hanging over her and her three children. I approached the Estates Department of British Railways and the chairman of the appropriate committee in Birmingham, though I can appreciate the dilemma of the local authority when it is recalled that there are over 50,000 on the local registers who are waiting for houses and 40,000 families living in rooms.
The General Manager informed me only this week, by letter:
The number of court orders dealt with by the Birmingham Estates Department from July, 1949, to July, 1950, was no less than 419–8 per week—out of which 129 were provided with accommodation. Each case is dealt with on its merits and, of course, you will realise it would be impossible to give assistance to everyone, as this would interfere with priorities.
I would ask the Minister to consult with the Minister of Health because if there is to be a continuation of evictions in this way, then a very grave situation will arise which will add to the dilemma of the local authorities.
That retired workers with long service and the widows of the men who have given long and faithful service should be subject at this moment to mental and physical distress is, frankly, monstrous. However frequently these actions are committed by private enterprise with legal sanctions, I say that it is morally indefensible that such actions should be committed by a public corporation which is expected to act and speak in the name of the British nation. If these actions proceed it means, ultimately, that the nation will lose its self-respect.
I say, in conclusion, that even from the earliest Christian writers the plight of the widow, the fatherless and the children has been the subject of almost every moral and spiritual appeal to the world. Our


own Socialist philosophy is based in essence upon the moral appeal of Christianity. So, tonight, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to do whatever he possibly can to bring about some administrative action which will at least alleviate the suffering and the anxiety of many families.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I think this House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) for raising this important public issue. This is not merely a matter of administrative detail of the railway companies which may be properly left to the Railway Executive. It is a matter of policy and an important matter of policy, too, and I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will recognise it as his responsibility.
I have a case as bad as that mentioned by my hon. Friend. It was a case, quite recently, of a lady—

Major Hicks-Beach: Was it since nationalisation?

Mr. Silverman: It was since nationalisation. I admit that these things have been going on before nationalisation: it is simply a continuation of the policy which was adopted before. It is something which we think is wrong. It is one of the bad habits of private enterprise, which is being carried on—

Major Hicks-Beach: The hon. Member said "bad habits of private enterprise." Can he give a single example of where, under the private enterprise, a railway employee's widow was turned out without having been given at least three months' notice?

Mr. Silverman: As a matter of fact—and I want to be quite fair—in this case the Railway Executive has been more considerate than that.

Major Hicks-Beach: Does the hon. Member know any case where the Railway Executive have put anybody out, because I know of many cases in Crewe and so far they have acted with generosity?

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry; I must get on. Some of my colleagues desire to speak. This woman has been threatened with eviction.

Major Hicks-Beach: For how long has she been threatened with eviction?

Mr. Silverman: For several months. I hope that the threat will not be carried out, but it lies over her head at this moment. A person who has worked for the railways for 28 years, who has occupied the present house for 17 years, and who retires is told by the Railway Executive, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Now clear out, we want the house for someone else." That is an entirely wrong and immoral thing, and the House is entitled to protest against it.
I can understand that attitude being adopted in the case of a tied house for say, a signalman, at a remote station where it is, possibly, essential that the employee should live near the station. This did not apply in this case, for it was in the centre of a big city, and it means that one person is being turned out to make room for another. It is a heartless case and I hope that the Minister of Transport will give us more pleasing news of the more favourable intentions of the Railway Executive.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: As the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) said, this question of the railway tied house is no new one. As far as I know—and I have had to deal with these matters—the private railway companies used a great deal of discretion in turning out the railwayman's widow, as sometimes there used to be trouble in the newspapers, and trouble which could not really be given publicity. I remember the first time my name appeared in the newspapers. I was accused of persecuting a railwayman's widow in just such circumstances as have been described. The point which did not appear was that the lady was not the man's widow at all, and had no business to be in the house. That was the reason why we were trying to get her out of it.
I hope hon. Gentlemen will think of this matter from the railwaymen's point of view. After all, the railway cottage was not built as a means of getting extra profit. It was built because certain houses were vitally necessary for certain classes of workers, the men who were on late turn or night shift, for whom it was


difficult to find accommodation anywhere else.
I give as an example the case of a fireman in my constituency, who is living in one room with his wife and child, 4½ miles from his station, where he is on the night turn. What is more, he is expecting an increase to his family. Those are absolutely impossible conditions and I took the case up with the Railway Executive. I got the answer that they could do nothing because such houses as they had were already occupied. When their own servants cannot carry out their work efficiently—and this man cannot be expected to cycle that distance in the middle of the night in wild weather in the middle of Cornwall—it is an impossible position. There are many such cases and that is why there are railway houses and why they are necessary for railwaymen. I feel that British Railways give every possible latitude to railwaymen's widows, and will continue to do so, but I would ask hon. Gentlemen to remember the position of the railwayman who wants a house.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Was it not the hon. Gentleman's experience that it was not a question of acting harshly against any one particular person, but of reconciling two conflicting hardships?

Mr. Wilson: Yes. In the case I have mentioned there was no justification for complaint.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am interested in this problem as I have the honour to represent the division of Kilmarnock, one of the most important railway centres in Scotland, a town with all the locomotive and wagon works at Bonnyton Square, and all the locomotive workers grouped at Barleith, living in railway cottages. I appreciate the difficulties of the Railway Executive in having to meet heavy costs for travelling time and lodging money to men living outside their own area. At the same time, I feel that the Railway Executive are overlooking, or not putting sufficient emphasis on, the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised. Think of the mental anguish caused to a man of 65 or 70 years of age, and his wife, who have

lived in a house for, perhaps, 50 years, when they are threatened with eviction.

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Gentleman should work for farmers if he wants to know about tied cottages.

Mr. Ross: I am not concerned with farmers; I am concerned with the sufferings of my constituents. I have had correspondence with the Minister of Transport on two particular cases; one the case of a man with 53 years' service on the railways, the son of a railwayman with 50 years' service, and a man whose son is now in the railways. They had all been born and brought up in this locality. After 53 years' service, one day he got a letter thanking him for his loyalty, and, the next day, another asking him to leave.

Major Hicks-Beach: What are the dates?

Mr. Ross: I am not concerned with dates or party points. This kind of thing has been going on for years and years, long before nationalisation, and it is far too serious a matter to talk about silly little things.
When this kind of thing happens in a small community where there is a family tradition it causes great bitterness and a sense of grave injustice. I know, for I am the son of a railwayman, and the grandson of one. I can assure the Minister that when this sort of thing happens to old timers whose loyalty and work have never been challenged—in one case the man had 53 years' service and in the other 47 years'—a sense of injustice is felt by the whole community. I suggest that it is wrong at a time when railwaymen are, upset over other things, to add to the feeling of bitterness. If the spirit of the last communication I had from my right hon. Friend—and for which I am deeply grateful—is followed in dealing with the widows of the old timers, and their conditions are given proper and due consideration by the Railway Executive, we shall be quite well satisfied tonight.
What is needed is a proper investigation into the whole question of railway tied houses, consultations with the local authorities regarding future needs, and particularly the giving of warning to men long before they retire so that they will


be able to get their names down on housing lists. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend should reassure these old railway servants and their wives that consideration for them did not end with that stereotyped letter thanking them for a lifetime of loyal service.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: This is a matter which has affected a number of my constituents and I have taken it up with the Chairman of the Railway Executive. From another hon. Member who has spoken tonight, we heard of the unsatisfactory state of affairs which arises because one is not able to put down a Parliamentary Question on this matter. I sometimes wonder whether the Minister himself is aware of what is going on in the national railways for which he is supposed to be responsible. I have had a letter from the Railway Executive regretting the action which they had to take in connection with one of my constituents who had served for over 40 years on the railways. They even asked me if I, as the local Member of Parliament, could use my influence with the local authority to see that more houses were made available for railway workers.
I should like to ask the Minister what building plans he has to increase the number of houses available. What approach has he made to the Minister of Health or to the appropriate Government Department to ask permission for the nationalised railways to build more houses for the railway workers? It should be quite unnecessary for the Railway Executive to ask me to use my influence. Surely, they should go to the Minister or to the Minister of Health for permission for the nationalised railways to build more houses. This sort of thing did not happen before the railways were nationalised, because there were plenty of houses. [Interruption.] When a man was going to retire, he was able to save up for a home for his retirement. It is only since the present Government have been in power and have failed to solve the housing problem that many of these problems have arisen.

10.57 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): A subject of this character is

bound to appeal to the deep emotions of hon. Members, because from whichever angle this problem is considered it involves individuals who are suffering considerable distress and hardship. The problem is not a new one in this House; it stretches back over a very long period. The problem of housing has been aggravated by two wars, and I have been sufficiently long in the House to have seen the efforts that various Governments have made to grapple with it. Recognising that, whatever was done with regard to housing, a great number of people would be requiring accommodation, Parliament has provided that in these matters resort should be made to the law and the issue decided on a matter of hardship.
Whilst references have been made to individuals whose distress is quite apparent, there has not been a single case quoted tonight of a person actually being evicted. What it amounts to is that hon. Members are asking me to do something which I have no power to do. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that in a matter of this kind the Minister has no power to intervene; he cannot go to the Railway Executive and say that they shall not take advantage of the law as provided by Parliament.
In reply to the suggestion that the Railway Executive should build more houses, I would point out that the Executive receive no Exchequer grant; it is not a case of their being rate-aided. The four main line railway companies had built 52,000 houses for the specific purpose of meeting the peculiar needs of railway men who have to be shifted about, who are liable to be called upon to carry out their duties under all circumstances, and who are performing a vital national service. Of those 52,000 houses which the Transport Commission have inherited with all their other problems, 21,000 are occupied by protected tenants under the Rent Restriction Acts.
With regard to the other 31,000, it is quite clear, from the character of this problem, that when they took possession of these properties they themselves were dispossessing other persons. They took the properties on those conditions. Then the railway operators are faced with the problem of promotion, and the transfer of individuals who have to carry out special duties. This is not a case of the


Railway Executive trying to turn people out for profit. It is a matter of having to meet two forms of pressure—pressure from its own staff, who want to be promoted or have to be shifted about the country, and of staff who are faced with the problem of maintaining two homes.
The original case which was quoted by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) involved a man who is a fireman and who wanted this particular house. He and his wife and, I believe, two children were living in one room. The Railway Executive has shown great reasonableness in this matter. Their own staff need possession of the Executive's houses, and it eventually comes down to the point that they resort to the provisions

which Parliament has made enabling the courts to decide. In every case quoted tonight the period of tenancy has been extended, and extended with a view to finding some other solution. This is an exceedingly difficult problem and the Railway Executive, being fully aware of the feelings of hon. Members, is doing its best to solve it.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.